^ 


C-ir 


REESE    LIBRARY 


UNIVERSITY   OF   CALIFORNIA, 

AWaWd. C^^' 

Accessio?is  j\o. 


'Q       Shelf  No , 


O- 


^^ 


d 


/ 


a/ 


S*^- 


UNIVh 


Access  ion\ 


« 


t 


*^ 


LETTERS 


REV.  WILLIAM  E.  CHAl^TNIIVG,  D.  D. 


ON  THE  EXISTENCE  AND  AGENCY 


FAI.I.EN    SPIRITS 


BY    CAXONICUS. 


No  demonstration  can  be  stronger  thanthis ;  God  hath  said  so,  therefore  it 
is  true. — Chilli ngworth. 

UNIVERSITY 

T.  R.  MARVIN,  32,  CONGRESS  STREET. 


SOLD  BY  CROCKER  AXD  BREWSTER,  PEIRCE  AND  WILLI^l^ISj 

HILLIARD,-GRAY,    LITTLE,    AND    WILKINS,    BOSTON: 

J.  P.  HAVEN,  AND  J.  LEAVITT,  NEW-YORK. 

18-28. 


DISTRICT  OF  MASSACHUSETTS to  wit  : 

District  Clerk's  Office. 

Be  it  remembered,  that  on  the  twenty  third  day  of  October,  A.  D.  1828, 
in  the  fifty  third  Year  of  the  Independence  of  the  United  Slates  of 
America,  Theophilus  R.  Marvin,  of  tlie  said  District,  has  deposited 
in  this  Office  the  Title  of  a  Book,  the  Right  whereof  he  claims  as 
Proprietor,    in    the  Words  following-,  to  7vit  : 

Letters  to  the  Rev.  William  E.  Channing,  D.  D.  on  the  existence  and 
agency  of  Fallen  Spirits.  By  Canonicus.  No  demonstration  can  be 
stronger  than  this  ;  God  hath  said  so,  therefore  it  is  true. — Chillingworth. 

In  conformity  to  the  Act  of  the  Congress  of  the  United  States,  enti- 
tled ''  An  Act  for  the  encouragement  of  learning,  by  securing  the  copies 
of  maps,  charts  and  books,  to  the  authors  and  proprietors  of  such  copies, 
during  the  times  therein  mentioned  :"  and  also  to  an  Act  entitled  "  An 
Act  supplementary  to  an  Act,  entitled,  An  Act  for  the  encouragement  of 
learning,  by  securing  the  copies  of  maps,  charts  and  books  to  the  authors 
and  proprielors  of  such  copies  during  tl)e  times  therein  mentioned  ;  and  ex- 
tending the  benefits  thereof  to  the  arts  of  designing,  engraving  and  etching 
historical  and  other  prints." 

JNO.  W.DAVIS,  I '^^Itf^;^!' 


By 


CONTENTS. 


LETTER  FIRST.  Page, 

Introduction.     Statement  of  subject, 5 

LETTER  SECOND. 

Preparatory  Argument, ,     .         12 

LETTER  THIRD. 

Scriptural  Argument  commenced, "  .         15 

LETTER  FOURTH. 
Scriptural  Argument  continued, 24 

LETTER  FIFTH. 
Scriptural  Argument  concluded, 49 

LETTER  SIXTH. 

Recapitulation.       Philosophical   Argument.       Objections 

considered, $5 

LETTER  SEVENTH. 
Inferences.     Conclusion, 77 

NOTE  A. 

The    Jewish   belief  in  the   existence  of  Satan  not  "  a 

fiction  of  Oriental  Mythology," 97 

NOTE  B. 

Consistent  Rationalism  denies  all  angelical  existences,      .        99 

NOTE  C. 
English  Unitarian  views  of  the  temptation,  devil,  &c.  .     .       100 


IV  CONTENTS. 

NOTE  D.  Page. 

American  Unitarian  Canon  of  Inspired  Books,     ....        108 
NOTE  E. 

The  credulity  and  tendency  of  Rationalism, 122 

NOTE  F. 
Priestley.     Eichhorn.      Calvin.     The   effect   of  Liberal 
sentiments  in  Switzerland,  and  of  Evangelical  senti- 
ments in  Great  Britain, 123 

NOTE  G. 

References  to  passages  of  the  New  Testament,  asserting 

the  existence  of  Evil  Spirits, 129 

NOTE  H. 
Reason — its  province  and  use.    Judge  Story,      ....         129 

NOTE  I. 
Are  Unitarians  Universalists  ? 134 

NOTE  J. 
Are  Unitarians  Christians  ?  . 146 

NOTE  K. 
Books  specially  deserving  attention,      .......        154 


LETTER  I. 

Rev.  and  Dear  Sir, 

The  present  is  a  day  of  free  inquiry.  Our  creed 
cannot  now  rest  on  authority,  but  on  argument.  The 
subject  about  to  be  examined,  which  constitutes  one 
article  in  "  the  popular  creed,"  you  will,  doubtless,  think 
of  importance,  of  great  importance,  if  the  view  here  taken 
be  correct ;  and  even  if  this  view  be  erroneous,  it  is  surely 
important  to  disabuse  the  public  mind  of  an  error  so  long 
and  so  generally  prevalent. 

But  you  will  ask,  "  Why  are  these  letters  addressed  to 
me  ?"  The  question  is  a  fair  one,  and  shall  have  a  frank 
answer.  Your  high  standing  in  this  community,  your 
acknowledged  talents,  your  various  learning,  your  culti- 
vated taste  and  extended  influence,  point  you  out  as  the 
proper  person  to  be  addressed,  that  any  mistatement  of 
facts  or  fallacy  of  reasoning  may  at  once  authorise  and 
invite  from  your  able  pen  prompt  and  certain  refutation. 
Another  motive,  I  am  free  to  state,  is  the  influence  of 
your  name  in  arresting  attention  and  inviting  inquiry. 
The  simple  fact,  however,  that  you  have  long  been  known 
as  an  intelligent  and  influential  advocate  of  Unitarianism, 
would  of  itself  justify  the  course  I  have  taken.  To  whom 
could  I  so  appropriately  address  a  series  of  Letters,  con- 
troverting the  opinions  of  Unitarians  on  an  important 
subject,  as  to  the  most  influential  of  the  Unitarian  clergy  ? 
Another  reason,  however,  for  this  course  will  soon  be 
1 


apparent,  which,  if  well  grounded,  will  not  only  justify, 
but  render  imperative  the  selection  of  Dr.  Channing  as 
the  individual  to  be  addressed. 

Without  further  preface,  I  shall  proceed  to  a  considera- 
tion of  the  subject  which  is  now  to  be  discussed.     I  am 
about  to  present  a  simply  scriptural  argument  in  proof  of 
the  existence  of  a  mi glity  fallen  Spirit,  called  Devil  or  Sa- 
tan ;  and  of  his  agency  and  influence  in  this  world.     The 
subject  thus  presented  is  uncommon,  and  will,  no  doubt, 
with  many,  be  unwelcome  and  unpopular.     But  you,  my 
dear  sir,  and  the  writer,  together  with  his  Unitarian  and  Or- 
thodox readers,  will  all  agree  in  this,  that  the  uncommon- 
ness  or  unpopularity  of  the  views  presented,  either  singly  or 
combined,  will  afford  no  proof,  nor  presumption  even,  that 
they  are  untrue.     The  truth  or    falsity  of  our  religious 
views  must  be  decided  by  another  standard  than  popular 
opinion.     "  To   the   law   and   to   the   testimony,"  is  our 
ultimate,   and   on   this   subject,  our  only    appeal.      The 
scriptures,    fairly    interpreted,    are    the    only    legitimate 
source   of  evidence   to   which   the  nature  of  the  subject 
admits  of  an  appeal.     On  a  subject  relating  to  the  invisi- 
ble world,  its  existences   and   influences,  the  Lord  from 
heaven — the   divine  teacher,  and  those  illuminated  by  his 
Spirit,  are  the   only  admissible,  because  the  only  compe- 
tent witnesses.     We  wish  to  know  what  the  Lord  Jesus, 
and  John,  and  Peter,  and  Paul  believed   and  taught ;  not 
what  Plato  or   Cicero   imagined,  or  Farmer  or  Edwards 
asserted.     Quit    the    scriptures,   and    ''  shadows,  clouds, 
and  darkness"  envelope  at  once  all  our  speculations,  not 
only  on  the  immortality  of  the  soul,  but  on  all  questions 
relating  to  immaterial  and  spiritual  existences.     We  shall 
see,    however,    as    we   proceed,    that   reason  does  teach 
and  can   teach    notliing   contrary  to  the  declarations  of 
inspired  wisdom,  relative  to  the  beings  and  influences  of 
the  unseen  world. 


I  assume  at  the  outset  of  this  discussion  what  you, 
doubtless,  will  readily  grant,  that  you  give,  and  acknowl- 
edge yourself  bound  to  give,  implicit  credence  to  what 
the  Bible  plainly  declares, — declares  not  in  a  solitary, 
isolated,  doubtful  text,  or  in  a  few  scattered,  uncertain 
passages,  but  plainly,  repeatedly,  explicitly.  I  shall  omit, 
on  the  immediate  subject  of  these  Letters,  all  arguments 
from  the  Old  Testament,  not  because  that  was  a  revela- 
tion "  adapted  to  the  infancy  of  our  race,"  for  "  all 
scripture,"  an  inspired  apostle,  referring  to  these  very 
books,  says,  "was  given  by  inspiration  of  God,"  who  surely 
would  not  deceive  in  the  infancy  any  more  than  in  the 
manhood  of  our  race,  (if  such  terms  have  any  meaning  ;) 
but  because  the  Saviour  and  his  apostles  have  more  fully 
revealed  the  fact  of  diabolical  existence  and  agency,  and 
thus  authenticated  previous  revelations,  rendering  '*  as- 
surance doubly  sure." 

Before  we  proceed  farther,  it  will  be  necessary  to  pre- 
pare the  way  for  the  discussion,  by  a  statement  of  those 
views,  which  to  the  writer  appear  alike  unscriptural  and 
untrue.  Whether  they  are  so  or  not,  is  the  question  at 
issue.  Unitarian  views  on  the  existence  and  influence  of 
evil  spirits,  have  recently  been  more  fully  developed,  I 
believe,  in  this  country,  than  heretofore.  The  following 
extract  from  a  communication  in  the  Christian  Register 
for  December  22,  1827,  gives  us  to  understand,  at  least, 
what  Unitarians  do  not  believe  on  this  subject.  It  is  part 
of  a  review  of  Dr.  Beecher's  missionary  sermon,  and  is 
all  that  relates  to  this  topic.  "  The  sermon  departs  from 
the  true  missionary  spirit,  in  making  erroneous  represen- 
tations of  religion.  It  asserts,  as  an  undeniable  fact  re- 
vealed in  the  scriptures,  the  notion  which  was  grafted 
upon  the  purity  of  the  Jewish  faith  from  the  fictions  of 
oriental  mythology,  that  the  world  is  under  the  dominion 
of  a  presiding  spirit,   who  divides  the  empire  with  the 


8 

only  God  ;  and  that  without  his  agency  it  is  as  impossible 
to  account  for  the  modifications  of  evil  among  men,  as  it 
would  be  to  account  for  the  origin  of  the  material  world, 
without  the  existence  of  an  Intelligent  Mind.  We  say 
nothing  of  the  truth  or  falsehood  of  diabolical  agency,  but 
we  do  say,  that  a  man  advanced  beyond  the  simplest  ele- 
ments of  theology,  who  asserts  this  doctrine,  as  an 
acknowledged  principle  of  revelation,  and  of  such  evident 
truth,  that,  without  it,  *  the  Bible  is  one  of  the  most  de- 
ceptive books  ever  written,'  displays  a  carelessness,  or  a 
hardihood  of  assertion,  that  excites  our  unaffected  amaze- 
ment, and  is  utterly  inconsistent  with  the  spirit  of  fair- 
ness and  good  faith,  which  lies  at  the  foundation  of  the 
missionary  cause.  Did  not  the  preacher  know,  that  theo- 
logians inferior  to  none  in  extent  of  learning,  deep  re- 
search, ardent  piety,  and  studious  attention  to  the  word 
of  God,  have  been  unable  to  discover  the  doctrine  there  ? 
How  could  he  then  declare,  that,  if  these  minds  had  been 
successful  in  their  investigations,  '  the  Bible  is  one  of 
the  most  deceptive  books  ever  written.'  We  know  not 
this  gentleman's  views  of  the  sacred  volume,  but,  with 
our  views,  no  temptation  could  induce  us  to  stake  its 
veracity  on  the  truth  of  any  doctrine  which  was  not,  ex- 
plicitly, revealed  ;  which  men,  studious  of  its  contents, 
have  believed  it  did  not  contain  ;  and  men,  studious  of 
nature  have  utterly  denied." 

The  style,  the  talent,  the  glowing  eloquence,  no  less 
than  the  adroitness  and  the  tact,  to  mention  no  other 
qualities,  of  the  whole  piece,  point  to  the  practised  hand 
of  a  master.  If  it  be  not  from  the  pen  of  the  gentleman 
to  whom  these  letters  are  addressed,  it  is  just  what  might 
have  been  expected  from  Dr.  Channing.  Published  in 
the  Register  under  the  circumstances  mentioned,  it  is 
evidently  an  expression  of  Unitarian  opinion.  If,  how- 
ever, I  have  misjudged  as  to  its  real  author,  this  will  not 


affect  the  question  at  issue  between  the  parties.  The 
piece  thus  pubhshed,  no  one  can  doubt,  is  intended  as  an 
expression  of  Unitarian  views.  No  Unitarian  has  ques- 
tioned the  soundness  of  those  views.  Am  I  not  authoriz- 
ed, through  this  discussion,  to  take  this  communication 
as  a  recorded,  recognised  expression  of  Unitarian  opinion 
on  this  subject  ?  Notwithstanding  the  Ciceronian  ex- 
pression, "  we  say  nothing  of  the  truth  or  falsehood  of 
the  doctrine  of  diabolical  agency,"  it  is  very  plain  that 
the  writer  says  and  intends  to  say  something,  and  that 
something  is  a  plain  denial  of  the  doctrine.  This  doc- 
trine he  distinctly  calls  ''  a  fiction  of  oriental  mytholo- 
gy," and  traces  its  history  by  telling  us,  that  it  "  was 
grafted  upon  the  purity  of  the  Jewish  faith  ?"*  All 
we  have  to  do  with  this  quotation  now,  however,  is  to  fix 
on  the  precise  meaning  of  the  author.  It  is  evident 
that  he  does  not  believe  in  the  existence  of  any  invisibJcy 
superhuman,  evil  agent,  having  influence  over  himself  or 
others. 

Let  me  now  ask  Unitarians  generally,  do  you  believe 
in  the  actual  existence  of  a  mighty  fallen  spirit,  who  se- 
duced our  first  parents  from  their  allegiance  to  God,  and 
still  continues  tempting  men  to  sin,  and  thus  plunging 
them  deeper  and  deeper  into  misery  ?  I  might  have  di- 
vided this  question,  but  I  prefer  putting  it  in  this  shape 
first ;  and  if  you  say  No,  as  I  expect  you  will,  is  that 
answer  the  result  of  the  theological  tenet  attached  to  it, 
the  doctrine  of  the  fcdl  1  If  so,  do  you  believe  in  the 
actual  personal  existence  of  the  devil  and  his  angels,  ab- 
stracted from  all  questions  of  influence,  past  or  present  ? 
Is  not  your  answer  still  the  same.  No  1  I  wish  to  state 
your  views  with  perfect  fairness  and  precision,  so  that  in 
my  subsequent  remarks  I  may  neither  do  you  injustice, 
nor  combat  ''  a  man  of  straw."     Unless   I  am  misinform- 

*  See  note  A. 
1* 


10 

ed,  and  I  have  taken  some  pains  to  learn  the  truth. 
Unitarians,  as  a  body,  deny  not  only  the  actual  agency, 
but  the  personal  existence  of  the  devil  and  his  angels. 
This,  to  preserve  even  the  show  of  consistency,  they  must 
do.  Surely,  if  the  scriptures  teach  the  existence  of 
mighty  fallen  spirits,  they  teach,  with  no  less  clearness, 
their  agency  in  this  world,  their  influence  over  men. 
With  the  writer  of  the  article  quoted  above,  you  do  not 
believe  in  any  invisible  superhuman  evil  agent,  having 
influence  over  yourselves  or  others.  You  do  not  believe 
in  any  such  agent.  You  do  not  perceive  or  feel  any  such 
existence  or  influence.  You  do  not  believe  the  scriptures 
teach  any  such  fact ;  therefore  you  do  not  believe  the 
fact.  Is  not  this  your  state  of  mind,  fairly  expressed,  so 
far  as  negatives  can  express  it  ? 

But  the  scriptures  assert,  or  at  least  see7n  to  assert,  not 
only  evil  agency  but  personality  of  evil  agency,  that  is,  a 
real  devil,  an  actual  Satan.  How  do  you  and  your  teach- 
ers get  over  assertions  of  this  sort  often  made  in  the  word 
of  God  ?  There  is,  no  doubt,  some  theory,  some  mode  of 
interpretation  on  this  subject,  which  satisfies  the  inquisi- 
tive among  Unitarians.  Many  may  throw  the  whole 
subject  by  as  unworthy  of  a  thought,  taking  it  for  granted, 
that  their  no  belief  is  sound  belief  Some  may  consider 
it  one  of  the  ''vexatious  questions"  more  easily  asked 
than  answered.  Others  may  think  these  expressions  an 
allegorical  mode  of  asserting  something  which  they  can- 
not define,  but  consider  an  "  oriental  fiction."  Still, 
among  rational,  unshackled  inquirers,  there  is,  doubtless, 
some  explication  which  removes  the  difficulty  that  is 
thought  to  embarrass  the  commonly  received  opinion. 
The  Rev.  Mr.  Ware  in  his  discourses*  calls  "  Satan,  the 
personified  principle  of  evil."  How  far  Mr.  Ware  speaks 
the  opinions  of  American  Unitarians  on  this  subject  is 
*  Second  edition,  p.  118. 


11 

left  for  inference.  But  as  this  is  the  interpretation  of  the 
same  word,  and  also  of  the  word  devil,  throughout  the 
Improved  Version,  it  may  fairly  be  presumed  that  the 
approved  Unitarian  explanation  of  these  words  is  contain- 
ed in  the  expression  "  principle  of  evil."  If  I  knew  of 
any  otlier  explanation  more  or  less  plausible,  I  would  give 
it.  This  discussion  may  not  be  wholly  useless,  if  it  tend 
to  enlighten  us  as  to  the  opinions  held  by  different  parties 
or  individuals  on  this  subject.  If  any  Unitarian  shall 
think  that  his  opinions  or  those  of  his  friends,  are  not 
properly  stated,  I  trust  he  will  find  an  excuse  for  the 
writer  in  the  want  of  explicitness  on  this  topic  in  Ameri- 
can Unitarian  writings.  Priestley,  Belsham,  &c.  are  not 
oracles  for  consultation,  or  at  least  their  responses  are  not 
allowed  to  be  authoritative  on  this  side  the  Atlantic, 
And  it  certainly  is  unfair  to  attribute  to  an  opponent, 
sentiments,  which  he  does  not,  or  we  do  not  know  him,  to 
believe.  The  opinions  of  the  Orthodox  on  the  subject  in 
question,  are  sufficiently  explicit.  Unitarian  ism,  so  far  as 
it  is  known  to  have  taken  any  positive  shape,  is  embodied 
in  the  phrase  already  quoted,  "  principle  of  evil."  Permit 
me  to  ask  you,  my  dear  sir,  do  you  not  assent  to  this  in- 
terpretation of  your  brother  in  the  ministry,  and  of  Unita- 
rian expositors  generally  1  I  also  desire  every  reader  of 
these  Letters,  before  he  proceeds  farther,  to  settle  in  his 
own  mind  and  for  his  individual  satisfaction,  the  precise 
import  of  the  words,  Satan,  Devil,  &-c.  so  often  used  in 
the  New  Testament. 

The  writer  is  not  ignorant  of  the  difficulties,  which 
either  do,  or  are  supposed  to  attend  this  subject ;  nor  of 
the  names  that  may  be  brought  to  bolster  up  a  denial  of 
what  the  scriptures,  left  to  the  plain  import  of  language, 
evidently  teach.  In  the  discussion,  however,  on  which 
we  are  about  to  enter,  all  names  and  all  authority  will  be 
thrown   aside,   except  the   authority   of  those   names,  to 


12 

which  Unitarians  and  the  Orthodox  attribute  inspiration. 
Unitarians  will,  of  course,  be  the  last  to  reject  the  grand 
Protestant  principles,  the  sufficiency  of  scripture,  and  the 
right  of  yrivate  judgment.  To  these  scriptures,  with  what 
judgment  we  possess,  let  us  now  appeal. 


LETTER  IL 


Rev.  and  Dear  Sir, 

I  REMARK  that  the  Bible  reveals  the  existence  of  good 
spirits,  angelic  natures,  sent  forth  to  minister  to  the  heirs 
of  salvation.  This  position  is  analagous  to  the  main  one 
I  shall  take,  and  will  tend  to  introduce,  illustrate,  and 
confirm  it.  These  spirits  not  only  exist,  and  take  an  in- 
terest, but  are  actually  concerned  in  the  government  of 
this  world.  For  proof  of  this,  I  simply  ask,  who  walked 
with  the  three  children  of  Israel  in  the  fire  ?  Who  is  Ga- 
briel, sent  to  Daniel,  to  Mary  and  others  ?  Who  is  "  Mi- 
chael, that  great  Prince  that  standeth  for  the  people  of 
God  ?"  Who  were  the  multitude  of  the  heavenly  host,  at- 
tendant on  the  angel  that  announced  the  advent  of  the 
Saviour  to  the  shepherds  in  Bethlehem  ?  Who  strength- 
ened Jesus,  when  he  fainted  in  the  garden  ?  Who  are  the 
twelve  legions  of  angels,  that  he  might  have  commanded 
at  any  moment  ?  Who  were  the  shining  ones,  that  rolled 
away  the  stone  from  the  sepulchre,  and  there  appeared 
to  the  disciples  and  the  women  ?  Who  told  the  apos- 
tles, that  in  like  manner  Jesus  should  return,  as  they 
had  seen  him  taken  up  into  heaven  ?  Who  opened  the 
prison  doors  by  night,  and  brought  the  apostles  forth  and 


13 

said,  ''  Go,  stand  and  speak  in  the  temple  to  the  people 
all  the  words  of  this  life  ?"  Who  smote  Peter,  sleeping 
between  two  soldiers,  bound  with  two  chains,  saying, 
"  Arise  up  quickly,  and  the  chains  fell  off  from  his  hands, 
and  the  iron  gate  opened  to  them  of  his  own  accord  V 

In  these  passages  a  visible,  perceptible,  angelic  agency 
is  asserted.  But  is  such  an  agency  never  invisible  and 
imperceptible  ?  Does  any  one  doubt  it  ?  Read  the  sixth 
chapter  of  the  second  book  of  Kings.  The  king  of  Syria 
had  sent  horses  and  chariots,  and  a  great  host,  to  seize 
Elisha.  The  servant  of  the  man  of  God  trembled  when 
he  saw  the  city  thus  encompassed,  and  said,  "  alas,  my 
master!  how  shall  we  do  ?  And  he  answered,  fear  not: 
for  they  that  be  icith  us  are  more  than  they  that  he  toith 
them.  And  Elisha  prayed,  and  said.  Lord,  I  pray  thee, 
open  his  eyes,  that  he  may  see.  And  the  Lord  opened 
the  eyes  of  the  young  man  ;  and  he  saw :  and  behold,  the 
mountain  was  full  of  horses  and  chariots  of  fire  round 
about  Elisha."  The  imagery,  here  attributed  to  the  spir- 
itual world,  was  probably  drawn  from  the  visible  horses 
and  chariots,  which  encompassed  them.  The  actual  fact, 
however, .of  invisible  protectors  and  protection,  is  distinct- 
ly asserted.  So  true  is  it,  that  "  the  angel  of  the  Lord 
encampeth  round  about  them  that  fear  him,  and  delivereth 
them."  Should  any  one  suppose  the  import  of  these  pas- 
sages doubtful,  because  the  one  is  figurative  and  the 
other  poetical,  to  remove  such  doubts,  only  one  passage 
more  need  be  quoted.  This  is  from  an  argumentative 
epistle.  "  Are  not  the  angels  all  ministering  spirits,  sent 
forth  to  minister  for  those,  who  shall  be  heirs  of  salva- 
tion ?"  This  passage  is  thus  rendered  by  Professor  Stuart ; 
*'  Are  they  not  all  ministering  spirits,  sent  forth  to  assist 
those  who  are  to  obtain  salvation  ?"  But  enough.  You 
believe  in  good  angels.*  You  believe  also  in  gradation 
*  See  note  B. 


14 

of  rank  among  them,  angels  and  archangels,  and  in  their 
interposition  in  the  affairs  and  the  government  of  our 
world.  All  this,  American  Unitarians,  unless  I  greatly 
err,  believe  plainly  revealed,  or  at  least,  have  not  denied 
to  be  plainly  revealed.  But  I  ask  you,  sir,  and  your  Uni- 
tarian brethren,  if  you  are  conscious  of  any  such  guardi- 
anship, protection  and  influence  as  is  positively  asserted 
in  the  passage  last  quoted  1  According  to  Unitarianism, 
recently  developed,  there  is  no  such  thing  as  future  eter- 
nal punishment.  Some  incorrigible  offenders  may,  per- 
haps, be  annihilated,  but  most  will  be  restored  to  purity 
and  to  heaven,  either  during  the  course  of  this  life,  or  by 
the  disciplinary,  reforming  power  of  punishment  in  the 
life  to  come.  The  great  mass  of  human  beings  during 
all  past  ages,  and  of  those  now  upon  the  stage,  whatever 
may  be  their  character,  must  ultimately,  according  to  this 
theory,  be  "  heirs  of  salvation."  But  the  "  heirs  of  sal- 
vation" "  have  angels  ministering  to  them,"  or  assisting 
them  in  obtaining  this  unspeakable  blessing.  Are  the 
great  mass  of  men  conscious  of  such  ministration  ?  Will 
they  not  pronounce  these  "angel  visits"  very  "  kw,' 
and  so  "  far  between,"  that  not  even  one  can  be  recol- 
lected ?  Have  the  "  men,  studious  of  nature,"  found  or 
believed  in  such  an  influence  from  the  invisible  world  for 
even  the  best  of  our  race  ? 

But  lest  you  should  be  dissatisfied  with  this  view  of  the 
subject,  let  us  look  at  it  from  another  quarter,  and  with  a 
different  light. 

Unitarians,  while  they  deny  the  personality  and  agency 
of  the  Holy  Spirit,  yet  believe,  or  profess  to  believe  in  a 
divine  influence  of  some  kind,  expressed  by  the  terms, 
grace,  Holy  Spirit,  &c.  by  which  men  are  assisted  in 
forming  habits  of  virtue.  But  is  not  this  influence  imper- 
ceptible ?  Is  it  not,  though  experienced,  yet  unfclt  by  its 
subject  ?     But  does  that  affect  its  reality  ?     Certainly  not. 


15 

Neither  does  the  fact,  that  the  agency  of  angels  in  min- 
istering to  the  salvation  of  men  is  imperceptible,  affect 
its  reality.  Will  not  all  agree,  then,  that  whatever  bene- 
ficial influence  is  exerted  in  behalf  of  our  race,  either  by 
the  Father  of  our  spirits,  or  by  those  unseen  messengers 
that  fly  to  do  his  will,  is  exerted  in  such  a  way,  so  exactly 
according  to  the  principles  of  our  nature  and  the  laws  of 
mind,  as  to  be  imperceptible  ?  It  does  not  at  all  inter- 
fere with  our  own  activity  or  accountableness.  The  fact 
of  its  existence  is  beyond  the  province  of  unassisted  rea- 
son to  discover,  and  is  to  be  believed,  like  the  facts  of  a 
future  resurrection  and  a  general  judgment,  simply  he- 
cause  revealed. 

Let  the  reflecting  reader  carry  these  last  remarks  along 
with  him  in  the  discussion  before  us. 


LETTER  Iir 


Rev.  and  Dear  Sir, 

Having  thus  prepared  the  way  for  the  discussion,  I 
now  assert,  and  shall  endeavor  to  prove,  that  the  Bible, 
plainly  and  imeqitivocally  reveals  the  existence  of  evil 
spirits,  one  of  whom,  ccdled  Satan  or  Devil,  being  repre- 
sented as  leader  of  the  rest ;  and  reveals  also  the  fact,  that 
they  jjossess  and  exercise  a  great  and  terrible  influence 
over  men. 

It  has  been  seen  that  American  Unitarians,  generally, 
believe,  or  do  not  deny  the  existence  of  good,  while  they 
do  deny  the  existence  of  evil  spirits  of  a  loftier  order  than 
our  race.     Does  the  inquiry  suggest  itself,  why  is  it  that 


16 

men  readily  believe  in  a  heaven,  and  as  readily  disheVievQ 
a  hell, — willingly  believe  in  good  angels,  but  de?ii/  the 
existence  of  bad  ones  ?  What  is  the  explanation  of  this, 
but  that  men  love  to  have  it  so,  and  easily  believe  or  dis- 
believe what  they  wish  ?  Is  not  this  a  general  principle  of 
our  nature  ?  Is  it  not  strongest,  when  least  perceived  ? 
And  may  it  not  be  operative  in  the  present,  as  in  other 
questions  ?  Selfishness  would  feel,  and  of  course  would 
offer  no  objections  to  a  companionship  and  brotherhood 
with  Gabriel.  But  what  principle  of  humanity  would  re- 
cognise an  intimate  alliance  with  Satan  ?  It  is  a  logical 
maxim,  quicquid  recipitur,  recipitur  ad  modum  recipientis, 
which  may  be  freely  rendered,  our  belief  is  shaped  and 
coloured  by  our  desires.  Let  us  now  attempt  to  lay 
aside  our  wishes,  and  decide  on  the  question  before  us 
from  arguments  addressed  to  reason,  discarding  prejudice 
and  all  preconceived  opinions,  and  believing  the  simple 
testimony  of  Him,  who  was,  and  is  the  truth,  who  knew 
the  truth,  and  has  plainly  revealed  the  truth. 

Let  us  now  proceed  to  examine  the  testimony  and  the 
witnesses  to  be  adduced. 

The  first  argument  in  proof  of  diabolical  existence  and 
agency,  is  the  fact,  that  Christ  himself  was  tempted,  and 
put  to  exquisite  suffering  by  Satan.  Matthew,  iv.  1 — 11. 
"  Then  was  Jesus  led  up  of  the  Spirit  into  the  wilderness, 
to  be  tempted  of  the  devil.  And  when  he  had  fasted 
forty  days  and  forty  nights,  he  was  afterward  an  hungred. 
And  when  the  tempter  came  to  him,  he  said,  If  thou  be 
the  Son  of  God,  command  that  these  stones  be  made 
bread.  But  he  answered  and  said.  It  is  written,  man 
shall  not  live  by  bread  alone,  but  by  every  word  that  pro- 
ceedeth  out  of  the  mouth  of  God.  Then  the  devil  taketh 
him  up  into  the  holy  city,  and  setteth  him  on  a  pinnacle 
of  the  temple,  and  saith  unto  him.  If  thou  be  the  Son  of 
God,  cast  thyself  down  :  for  it  is  written,  he  shall  give  his 


17 

angels  charge  concerning  thee  ;  and  in  their  hands  they 
shall  bear  thee  up,  lest  at  any  time  thou  dash  thy  foot 
against  a  stone.  Jesus  said  unto  him,  It  is  written  again, 
thou  shalt  not  tempt  the  Lord  thy  God.  Again  the  devil 
taketh  him  up  into  an  exceeding  high  mountain,  and 
showeth  him  all  the  kingdoms  of  the  world,  and  the  glory 
of  them  ;  and  saith  unto  him,  All  these  things  will  I  give 
thee,  if  thou  wilt  fall  down  and  worship  me.  Then  saith 
Jesus  unto  him,  Get  thee  hence,  Satan  ;  for  it  is  written, 
Thou  shalt  worship  the  Lord  thy  God,  and  him  only  shalt 
thou  serve.  Then  the  devil  leaveth  him,  and  behold, 
angels  came  and  ministered  unto  him."  Compare  Mark, 
i.  13,  Luke,  iv.  1—13. 

Whatever  difficulties,  real  or  imaginary,  may  attend 
the  subject  of  "  the  temptation,"  the  actual  existence 
of  a  mighty  evil  spirit  is  plainly  asserted.  No  American 
critic  has  yet  ventured  to  deny,  that,  when  angels  are  said 
in  this  passage  to  have  come  and  ministered  to  Christ, 
personal  existence,  attributes,  and  actions,  are  ascribed  to 
them.*  They  really  approached  and  served  their  Lord, 
whom  *'  all  the  angels  are  commanded  to  worship."  Put- 
ting other  passages  of  scripture  out  of  the  question,  as 
equally  in  favor  of  angelic  and  diabolical  existence,  what 
is  the  evidence  from  the  above  quotation  in  proof  of  the 
existence  of  angels  ?  It  is  found  in  a  single  verse,  and  a 
solitary  assertion.  Angels  came  and  ministered  to  him  ; 
the  devil  came  and  tempted  him.  If  the  passage  stood 
thus,  the  evidence  for  angelic  and  for  diabolical  existence 
would  be  equal.  But  how  stands  the  evidence  now  ? 
Through  the  whole  passage,  not  only  personal  names, 
devil,  Satan,  the  tempter ;  personal  actions,  coming, 
talking,  quoting  scripture,  reasoning  ;  but  all  the  ingenui- 
ty of  artifice  which  can  be  imagined   as  belonging  to  the 

*  Wliat,  according  to  Unitarian  exposition,  can  the  assertion 
"  angels  came  and  ministered  unto  him,"  mean  ? 

2 


18 

great  enemy  of  mankind,  is  employed  to  accomplish  his 
diabolical  purpose.  Jesus  is  hungry  ;  the  devil  knows  it 
and  says,  "  here  now  is  an  opportunity,  if  you  are  what 
you  profess  to  be,  to  show  your  power.  Make  bread  of 
this  stone."  "  Man  shall  not  live  by  bread  alone."  "  You 
claim  God  for  a  protector.  Cast  yourself  from  this  pin- 
nacle, and  see  if  his  angels  will  take  charge  of  thee." 
"  Thou  shalt  not  tempt  the  Lord  thy  God."  "  Here  are 
all  the  kingdoms  and  riches  and  glory  of  the  world. 
They  are  mine.  Only  fall  down  and  worship  me,  and 
they  shall  be  thine."  "  Get  thee  behind  me,  Satan.  To 
God  only  belongs  worship."  Having  thus  assailed  Christ 
through  the  most  importunate  of  sinless  appetites,  and 
through  the  strongest  principles  of  humanity,  the  love  of 
riches  and  power  and  glory,  and  having  been  thwarted  in 
each  attempt  by  an  "  it  is  written,"  **  it  is  written,"  "  it  is 
w^ritten,"  the  devil  leaveth  him,  and  angels  came  and  min- 
istered unto  him.  Is  there  not  as  much  evidence  in  this 
passage  of  the  existence  of  Satan,  as  of  good  angels?  If 
the  existence  and  agency  of  the  former  must  be  explained 
away,  on  what  principle  can  the  existence  and  agency  of 
the  latter  be  allowed  ?  I  wish  you,  my  dear  sir,  and  every 
Unitarian  reader  of  these  Letters  who  professes  to  think 
for  himself,  to  say  whether  you  are  prepared  to  adopt  a 
principle  of  interpretation,  which  not  only  denies  the  ex- 
istence of  Satan  but  of  Gabriel  also.  Let  him  who  doubts 
it,  suppose  for  a  moment,  that  there  is  a  mighty  evil  spirit, 
whose  great  desire  was  to  divert  Christ  from  the  purpose 
of  his  ministry  ;  and  suppose  him  to  have  approached 
Christ  with  this  intent,  could  words  and  actions  more 
appropriate  and  in  character,  have  been  selected  ?  Are 
there  any  cliaracters  drawn  by  Shakespeare  more  exactly 
"  in  keeping,"  than  those  of  Christ  and  Satan,  as  drawn 
by  the  publican,  Matthew?  Reflect  on  the  immensity  of 
interest  staked  at  this  moment,   when  the  second  Adam 


19 

was  thus  assailed  by  "  the  prince  of  this  world,"  and  say 
if  the  very  grandeur  uf  the  conception  does  not  substan- 
tiate and  authorize  the  common  interpretation  ?  Cut,  not 
to  rely  on  this,  does  not  every  mind  on  first  reading  this 
passage,  believe  the  existence  of  an  evil  spirit  to  be 
asserted?  Does  not  the  most  intelligent  mind,  reading  it 
for  the  hundredth  or  thousandth  time,  believe  such  an  ex- 
istence asserted  J  whether  he  believe  ihefact  of  such  an  ex- 
istence or  not?  Would  not  every  one  believe  i\\efact,  were  ' 
it  not  for  certain  philosophical  or  moral  difficulties  thought 
to  attend  the  subject  ?  Will  these  difficulties  be  removed, 
and  the  whole  subject  cleared  up,  by  turning  the  concrete 
into  the  abstract,  "  Satan"  into  "  the  principle  of  evil," 
to  accommodate  German  Neology,  and  American  Unita- 
rianism  ?  to  meet  the  opinions  of  Professor  Semler  and 
Rev.  Mr.  Ware  ?  Will  it  not  require  a  stretch  of 
even  "  rational"  credulity  to  believe,  that  "  the  principle 
of  evil"  should  say,  or  be  represented  as  saying,  "  all  this 
power  will  I  give  thee,  and  the  glory  of  them  ;  for  that 
is  delivered  unto  me  ;  and  to  whomsoever  I  will,  I  give 
it :  if  thou  therefore  wilt  worship  me,  all  shall  be  thine"  ? 
Was  Christ,  "  full  of  the  Holy  Ghost,"  tempted  to  fall 
down  before,  and  to  worship  the  abstract  principle  of  evil  ? 
Can  any  believer  in  revelation,  possessing  an  iota  of  rea- 
son, believe  this  ?  But  not  to  dwell  too  long  on  a  diffi- 
culty which  meets  us  at  the  outset,  and  will  not  be  found 
to  lessen  as  we  advance,  is  not  the  first  part  of  this  argu- 
ment made  out,  to  wit,  that  Christ  was  tempted  hy 
Satan  .^* 

*  The  intention  of  the  writer  is,  that  while  this  discussion  assumes 
a  popular  shape,  it  shall  have  an  immovable  foundation  in  the  sound- 
est criticism.  No  quotations,  however,  will  be  made,  except  from 
the  common  version,  for  these  reasons,  first,  that  every  one  has  ac- 
cess to  that  in  an  intelligible  shape  ;  and,  secondly,  that  the  result  of 
the  severest  critical  examination  is  an  establishing,  beyond  dispute, 
of  the  common  text  as  genuine  in  all  the  passages  on  which  any  reli- 
ance is  here  placed.    No  Unitarian  critic  will  attempt  to  evade  the 


20 

Let  us  consider  the  proof  of  the  other  part  of  the  propo- 
sition, that  Christ  teas  also  put  to  exquisite  suffering  hy  the 
tempter.  After  the  devil  had  departed  from  him,  no  other 
mention  is  made  of  any  such  temptation  through  his  whole 
life,  till  near  its  close,  when  he  makes  this  remarkable 
declaration,  "  Hereafter  I  will  not  talk  much  with  you, 
for  the  prince  of  this  world  cometh,  and  hath  nothing 
in  me."  John,  xiv.  30.  Can  any  one  doubt  that  by  *'  the 
prince  of  this  world"  Christ  meant  "  Satan,"  "  the  devil," 
"  the  god  of  this  world,"  ''  the  prince  of  the  power  of  the 
air,"  "  the  spirit  that  now  worketh  in  the  children  of 
disobedience"  ?  Christ  was  "  holy,  harmless,  undefiled, 
and  separate  from  sinners,"  *'  knew  no  sin,"  was  "  with- 
out sin  ;"  was  he  then  tempted  by  "  the  principle  of  evil "  ? 
Even  on  tlie  supposition  of  some  Unitarians,  that  he  was 
a  "  fallible  and  peccable  man,"  according  to  all  known 
principles  of  human  nature,  and  the  well  established  con- 
stitution of  the  human  mind,  he  had  now  acquired  a 
fixedness  of  principle,  and  elevation  of  moral  character  so 

force  of  the  following  arguments  by  appealing  to  "  various  readings." 
Some  principle  of  interpretation  must  be  hit  upon  to  undermine  their 
foundation,  or  the  question  must  be  given  up.  I  shall  hereafter 
prosecute  this  investigation,  as  though  no  other  book  were  in  being 
except  the  New  Testament  in  plain  "English,  with,  perhaps,  a  very- 
few  exceptions  ;  one  of  which  refers  to  this  first  quotation  from  Mat- 
thew. The  full  strength  of  ai-gument  by  which  this  passage  proves 
the  position  taken,  cannot  be  perceived  by  the  mere  English  reader. 
The  word  here  translated  "  the  tempter,"  is  of  peculiar  structure  and 
significancy  in  the  original,  and  may  be  pronounced  untranslatable. 
It  is  a  present  participle  with  the  masculine  article  prefixed.  Gerard, 
in  his  Institutes  of  Biblical  Criticism,  treating  on  "  the  usage  of  par- 
ticles "  has  this  rule,  (913)  "  the  article  prefixed  to  a  participle  present, 
often  makes  it  to  denote  a  character,  an  employment,  a  habit  of  life 
or  a  general  state  of  being  ;  and  that,  not  only  absolutely,  or  relative 
to  the  present  time,  but  also  with  respect  to  the  past  or  the  future." 
Under  this  rule  he  adduces  ten  illustrations,  the  first  of  w'hich  is 
that  of  the  w^ord  in  question,  which  he  thus  translates  :  "  he,  whose 
character,  custom,  employment  it  is,  to  tempt."  The  same  word  is 
translated  by  Storr  in  his  Elements  of  Biblical  Theology,  vol.  ii.  page 
20,  "  he,  who  is  in  a  habit  of  seducing  to  sin."  Gerard  is  of  high 
authority  in  the  Theological  School  at  Cambridge.  Storr  is  from  the 
Codman  press  at  Andover.  Both  of  tl^ese  writers,  particularly  Storr, 
liave  been  considered  in  Europe  and  America,  as  having  attained,  at 


heroic  and  sublime,  as  to  bid  defiance  to^wl(iR$»se  tefiflpta- 
tions  which  can  be  supposed  to  spring  from  wff  pt'inciple. 
Have  you  ever  reflected  on  the  agony  of  Christ  in  the 
garden,  when  the  sweat  fell  from  him,  "  as  it  had  been 
great  drops  of  blood"?  Why  the  earnest  entreaty,  "  let 
this  cup  pass  from  me"  1  Why  this  extremity  of  agony 
during  the  whole  of  the  passion  ?  What  occasioned  it  ? 
Socrates  died  not  thus.  Washington  died  not  thus. "  Dr. 
Payson  died  not  thus.  Multitudes,  of  the  tenderest  years 
and  of  the  most  delicate  sex,  have  been  broken  upon  the 
rack  or  consumed  in  the  flames,  and  come  ofl*  conquerors 
and  more  than  conquerors,  rejoicing  to  suffer  affliction, 
rejoicing  to  die  for  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus.  Was 
Christ  less  innocent,  less  noble,  less  capable  of  endurance  ? 
Was  there  not  a  struggle  with  "  the  powers  of  darkness  "  ? 
''with  spiritual  wickedness  in  high  places"?  "Foras- 
much, then,  as  the  children  were  partakers  of  flesh  and 
blood,  he  also  himself  likewise  took  part  of  the  same,  that 
through  death  he  might  destroy  him,   v/ho  had  the  power 

least,  to  "  the  simplest  elements  of  theology."  Their  testimony  to 
the  force  of  language  according  to  Greek  usage,  coinciding  ia  the 
present  case,  gives  them  an  authority  with  all  parties,  which  it  will  be 
difficult  for  the  most  tortuous  and  remorseless  criticism  to  resist  or 
evade.  If  words  can  mean  any  thing  defmite  and  certain,  "  the  tempt- 
er" in  this  passage  means,  according  to  these  critical  philologists,  '*  an 
agent,  whose  unceasing  occupation  it  is  to  tempt  to  sin."  Let  hin) 
who  can,  evade  the  force  of  this,  by  showing  it  to  be  a  principle  of 
Greek  usage,  to  predicate  abstract  existence  of  the  masculine  article 
prefixed  to  the  present  participle.  I  have  referred  to  but  two  au- 
thorities on  this  subject,  though  a  host  might  be  mentioned  of  philo- 
logists, commentators,  and  critics,  all  in  unison  on  this  point.  But 
Gerard  and  Storr,  having  lately  issued  from  the  American  press,  are 
accessible  to  all,  and  of  ample  authority.  It  may  be  well  to  state 
here,  once  for  all,  that  many  pertinent,  as  well  as  many  more 
doubtful  proof  texts,  will  be  wholly  omitted.  Of  the  latter,  the  Lord's 
prayer  affords  a  well  known  and  striking  example.  The  clause  "  de- 
liver us  from  evil "  is  ambiguous  in  the  original,  and  may  mean,  as  in 
the  common  version,  from  the  evil  principle,  or  from  the  evil  one. 
The  word  is  in  an  oblique  case,  and  may  be  derived  from  either  a 
neuter,  or  a  masculine  noun.  No  dependence  could  be  placed  on 
such  a  word,  and  in  the  present  discussion,  there  is  no  necessity  for 
thus  misplacing  it.  Even  the  univocal  passages  must  be  decima- 
ted, to  bring  the  subject  within  proper  limits. 

2* 


22 

of  death,  that  is,  the  devil."'  Heb.  ii.  14.  "  Having 
spoiled  principalities  and  powers,  he  made  a  show  of  them 
openly,  triumphing  over  them  in  it,"  (that  is,  by  his  cross, 
his  death.)  Col.  ii.  15.  '*  For  this  purpose  the  Son  of 
God  was  manifested,  that  he  might  destroy  the  works  of 
the  devil."  1  John,  iii.  8.  The  preceding  passages  show 
how — bi/  his  death.  Is  there  any  other  rational  interpre- 
tation than  that  just  given  1  Christ  was  innocent,  perfect, 
was  to  suffer  for  a  limited  and  short  time,  and  on  the 
third  day  to  rise  again.  All  of  this  he  knew.  What  so 
dreadful  in  this,  if  barely  or  chiefly  to  attest  the  truth  of 
his  mission,  and  the  doctrine  of  a  resurrection  and  a 
future  life,  that  he  could  not  meet  it  ''  like  a  man,"  and 
rise  above  the  mere  physical  suffering  he  would  now  en- 
dure ?  Rather  was  not  this,  as  he  himself  has  assured 
us,  the  hour  of  his  earthly  enemies,  and  the  power  of 
darkness  ?  Was  he  not  at  this  time  so  *'  forsaken  of  his 
Father,"  that  he  suffered  all  that  could  be  inflicted  by 
him  "  who  has  the  power  of  death,  that  is,  the  devil  ;" 
"  whose  works  he  came  to  destroy,"  and  whose  power 
and  dominion  at  this  hour,  trembled  and  were  broken  ? 
This  is  an  intelligible  and  rational  explanation  of  this 
great  and  momentous  subject.  This  view  of  the  passion 
of  Christ  does  not  exclude,  but  may  very  properly  include 
all  suffering  he  may  have  endured  from  his  clear  percep- 
tion of  the  evil  of  sin,  and  of  its  tremendous  consequences  ; 
all  suffering  of  a  vicarious  nature,  with  which  it  pleased 
the  righteous  Judge  of  the  moral  universe  "  to  bruise 
Him,  by  whose  stripes  we  are  healed."  That  he,  bow- 
er, suffered  at  this  moment  "  hell  torments,"  we  do  not 
for  a  moment  believe.  Innocence  can  iiever  endure  the 
agony  of  remorse,  or  feel  the  stings  of  personal  guilt,  or 
suffer  the  burning  torture  of  an  accusing  conscience. 
Holiness  can  never,  till  the  principles  of  mind  and  the 
laws  of  moral  agency   are   completely  subverted,   endure 


23 

the  same  kind  of  suffering  with  unhoHncss.  The  suffer- 
ings of  Christ  sprung  from  a  different  source.  The  pas- 
sages just  quoted,  point  out  this  source,  it  is  believed, 
with  great  distinctness.  Not  a  gleam  of  light  breaks  in 
upon  this  subject  from  any  Unitarian  hypothesis. 

The  prince  of  this  world,  then,  tempted  Christ,  enter- 
ing on  his  ministry,  and  agonized  him,  (so  to  express  it,) 
finishing  it.  At  these  two  periods  we  might,  a  priori, 
expect  the  enemy  of  all  goodness,  if  ever  permitted  to  as- 
sail the  Prince  of  Peace,  to  be  awake  to  the  dangers  of 
his  kingdom,  and  active  to  prevent  its  overthrow.  The 
commencement  and  the  completion  of  the  great  work  of 
redemption,  were  epochs  too  marked  not  to  call  forth  all 
the  art  and  the  venom  of  the  powers  of  darkness.  If 
Christ,  if  spotless  perfection,  could  be  thus  tempted  and 
caused  to  suffer,  what  shall  we  think  of  those  in  lohose 
mortal  members  sin  reigns,  whose  hearts  are  evil  only,  and 
continually  ?* 


*  See  note  C. 


24 


LETTER   TV. 

Rev.  and  Dear  S'iTj 

My  second  argument  is,  that  Chrut  himself  repeatedly 
and  explicitly  taught  this  doctrine. 

I.  He  taught  it  to  the  Jews  at  large,  as  a  people. 

Proof.  John,  viii.  44 — 48.  "  Ye  are  of  your  father  the 
devil,  and  the  lusts  of  your  father  ye  will  do  :  he  was  a 
murderer  from  the  beginning,  and  abode  not  in  the  truth, 
because  there  is  no  truth  in  him.  When  he  speaketh  a  lie, 
he  speaketh  of  his  own  ;  for  he  is  a  liar,  and  the  father  of  it. 
And  because  I  tell  you  the  truth,  ye  believe  me  not.  Which 
of  you  convinceth  me  of  sin  ?  And  if  I  say  the  truth,  why 
do  ye  not  believe  me  ]  He  that  is  of  God,  heareth  God's 
words  :  ye  therefore  hear  them  not,  because  ye  are  not  of 
God.  Then  answered  the  Jews,  and  said  unto  him,  say  we 
not  well,  that  thou  art  a  Samaritan  and  hast  a  devil  ?"  See 
the  whole  chapter.  It  contains  an  account  of  one  of  the 
most  extended  conversations  between  the  Jews  and  our 
Saviour,  which  the  Holy  Spirit  has  put  on  record  for  our 
instruction.  If  we  can,  by  any  strength  of  prejudice  or 
ingenuity  of  supposition,  doubt,  after  reading  it,  whether 
Jesus  really  meant  to  assert  the  fact  of  diabolical  exist- 
ence and  agency,  let  us  for  once  fancy  ourselves  wholly 
divested  of  our  Christian  birth  and  education,  feelings, 
opinions,  and  prejudices.  Let  imagination  annihilate 
eighteen  centuries,  and  place  us  in  the  midst  of  this  per- 
verse and  querulous  group.  What  are  the  opinions  of  this 
multitude  whom  the  Saviour  is  addressing?  They  are 
mostly,  if  not  all,  of  the  sect  ol*  the  Pharisees.  They  be- 
lieve in  evil  spirits  of  different  orders  and  influence. 
They  pride  themselves  on  their  lineal  descent  from  Abra- 


25 

ham.  Jesus  denies  that  they  are  truly  the  children  of 
Abraham,  possessed  of  like  faith,  feelings  and  character. 
"  No.  Your  real  father  is  one  whom  you  are  little  dis- 
posed to  own.  Ye  are  of  your  Hither  the  devil,  and  his 
lusts  ye  will  do.  Who  of  you  ever  knew  me  utter  a  false- 
hood ?  Have  I  not  always  spoken  the  truth  ?  Do  I  not 
speak  the  truth  now  ?  Why  then  do  ye  not  believe  me  ? 
He  that  is  of  God  hearcth  God's  words  :  ye  therefore  hear 
them  not,  because  ye  are  not  of  God."  The  Jews  are 
hard  pressed  by  these  accusations  and  arguments.  They 
must  evade  them.  The  edge  of  truth  must  be  blunted. 
"  Say  we  not  well,  thou  hast  a  devil  ?"  "I  have  not  a 
devil ;  but  I  honor  my  Father,  and  ye  do  dishonor  me.  If 
any  man  keep  my  saying,  he  shall  never  taste  of  death." 
"  Now  we  know  thou  hast  a  devil.  Even  Abraham  is 
dead.  Whom  makest  thou  thyself?  None  but  one  influ- 
enced by  a  devil  could  bring  such  charges  against  us,  the 
offspring  of  Abraham,  the  chosen  people  of  God  :  and 
make  such  pretensions.  Thou  hast  a  devil."  It  deserves 
special  notice,  that  when  Jesus  in  the  34th  verse  states 
the  abstract  proposition,  "  whosoever  committeth  sin  is 
the  servant  of  sin,"  it  excites  little  notice,  no  rage. 
When  in  the  3Sth  verse  he  gives  them  to  understand  that 
their  father  and  his  were  different,  they  forget  God  and 
claim  Abraham.  But  when  he  distinctly  asserts  their 
connexion  with  the  devil,  then,  to  evade  the  accusation, 
they  throw  it  back  upon  him.  They  do  not  deny  diaboli- 
cal existence,  nor  raise  any  cavils  about  the  mode,  or  the 
reasons,  or  the  propriety  of  this  invisible  influence.  They 
concede  all  this,  but  to  exculpate  themselves,  charge  him 
with  being  instigated  by  an  unseen  evil  agent.  "  Thou 
hast  a  devil."  Was  it  not  incumbent  on  him,  who  in  this 
very  conversation  called  upon  them  to  declare  if  he  had 
ever  uttered  an  untruth,  not  to  utter  one  at  this  moment  1 
How  could  he  address  them,  ''  I  tell  you  the  truth  when 


26 

I  say  ye  are  of  your  father,  the  devil,"  in  whose  personal 
existence  and  influence  he  knew  them  to  believe,  when  at 
the  same  time  he  knew  he  was  uttering  an  untruth  ;  kneio 
that  there  ivas  no  devil ;  that  they  could  not  be  injiuenced 
by  any  such  evil  being;  and  that  their  belief  loas  an 
"  oriental  fiction^^  1  Should  the  Saviour  now  ask  ''  who 
convinceth  me  of  sin  V  the  reply  would  be  easy,  the 
writer  quoted  from  the  Register.  "  You  say  there  is  a 
devil.  You  know  better.  There  is  none.  I  do  not  be- 
lieve you,  because  you  do  not  say  the  truth."  If  that 
writer  object  to  this  as  harsh,  or  in  any  way  unfair,  let 
him  explain  how  those  Jews  necessarily  understood  Christ. 
It  is  not  enough  to  say,  that  they  sometimes  perverted  his 
meaning,  wresting  it  to  a  sense  which  he  did  not  intend. 
What,  in  the  present  instance,  was  the  inevitable  import  of 
the  Saviour's  language  ?  What  meaning  did  he  intend  to 
convey  to  the  ears  of  Jews,  with  their  education,  opinions 
and  feelings,  followers,  as  they  were,  of  the  Pharisees  1 
I  call  upon  the  Unitarian  critics,  those  best  skilled  in  the 
science  of  interpretation  as  stated  by  Carpenter  and 
Ernesti,  to  answer  these  short  simple  questions  ;*  What 
did  Christ,  addressing  Jews,  followers  of  the  Pharisees, 
mean,  when  he  said,  "  ye  are  of  your  father,  the  devil"  ? 
What  must  such  Jeios  have  understood  him  to  mean  1 
What  did  they  mean  when  tliey  disclaimed  such  a  parent- 
age, and  threiv  a  similar  charge  bach  upon  him  1  The 
whole  subject  is  here  contained  in  a  nutshell.  Either 
Christ  did  assert  to  these  Jews  the  existence  and  influ- 
ence of  a  mighty  evil  spirit,  or  we  must  "  go  the  whole" 
of   the    accommodation    system,    as    advanced    and    de- 

*  Before  any  gentleman  reply  to  this  argument,  I  would  invite  him 
to  read  Carpenter's  introductory  chapter  to  his  work  on  Unitarianism. 
The  principles  of  interpretation,  stated  by  this  writer,  are  generally 
correct,  and  happily  expressed.  I  will  only  add,  if  he  and  his  Ameri- 
can coadjutors  will  abide  by  these  principles,  the  question,  as  to  the 
existence  and  influence  of  evil  spirits,  is  settled. 


27 

fended  by  Seniler,  in  its  broadest  and  most  offensive 
shape.*  Every  mind,  capable  of  understanding  principles 
and  of  applying  them  logically,  will  see  that  there  is  no 
middle  ground  here.  But,  perhaps,  some  may  think  that 
these  Jews  might  not  have  been  all  Pharisees,  but  part 
Sadducees.  Grant  it.  What  difficulty  is  removed  ?  The 
dilemma  will  then  be,  he  either  knowingly  confirmed  an 
existing  false  impression,  in  case  they  were  Pharisees,  or 
asserted  for  truth  what  his  hearers  rejected  as  falsehood, 
if  they  were  Sadducees.  In  the  latter  case,  what  room 
remains  for  any  supposable  species  of  "  accommoda- 
tion"? Let  the  impugners  of  the  doctrine  asserted,  take 
which  horn  they  please,  neither  will  relieve  the  Saviour 
from  the  charge  of  teaching  falsely ,  if  he  did  not  teach 
the  existence  and  agency  of  evil  spirits.  From  the  pas- 
sage quoted  from  John's  gospel,  and  from  the  preceding 
remarks,  these  three  inferences  are  fairly  deducible. 

1.  The  Jews  did  not  understand  the  phrase,  "  servant 
of  sin,'"'  that  is,  of  the  evil  principle,  as  a  perfect  synonyme 
with  "  child  of  the  devil."  It  is  evident  that  there  was 
a  personality  of  meaning  attached  to  the  latter  phrase, 
over  and  above  the  import  of  the  former. 

2.  The  Saviour  assumes  the  fact  of  the  existence  of  an 
evil  spirit,  who  was  a  liar  and  a  murderer  (homicide)  from 
the  becrinninor.  This  fact  the  Saviour  assumes,  asserts 
and  reasserts. 

3.  The  existence  of  such  an  agent   is  not   denied,  but 

*  The  accommodation  system  represents  "  Christ  and  his  apos- 
tles as  speaking  and  teaching  hi  accordance  with  the  erroneous 
opinions  of  their  hearers,  and  as  not  expressing  precisely  and  truly 
their  oicn  opinions."  See  Ston's  Theolooy,  vol.  i.  p.  228.  For  a 
full  refutation  of  this  fundamental  principle  of  infidel  neolog;y,  see  the 
treatise  on  "  The  Historical  Sense,"  by  the  same  ahle  writer.  A  new 
and  revised  edition  of  this  treatise  is  much  needed  at  the  present 
moment.  The  learned  and  industrious  translator  would  add  to  our 
many  obligations  of  gratitude,  another  of  no  slight  weight,  by  a  new 
edition  of  that  masterly  performance. 


28 

assented  to,  and  asserted  on  their  part  by  the  irritated 
and  captious  Jews. 

But  if,  according  to  the  "  rational"  interpretation,  the 
word  "devil"  mean  "principle  of  evil,"  it  will  not  be 
easy  to  clear  the  Saviour  from  uttering,  or  confirming  at 
least,  three  distinct  untruths.  He  allowed,  in  this  con- 
versation, two  falsehoods  to  pass  uncontradicted,  and  as- 
serted that  which  substantiated  them.  Was  such  the 
practice  of  the  true  and  living  teacher  ?  Does  any  one 
say,  "  these  were  a  blind,  ignorant  multitude.  They 
could  not  know  the  truth"?  The  more  need,  o-;*^  would 
think,  that  their  errors  should  be  rectified,  not  confirmed. 
But  the  fallacy  of  such  an  objection  will  soon  be  appa- 
rent. 

II.  Jesus  taught  the  same  doctrine  to  the  Pharisees,  as 
a  sect. 

Proof.  Matt.  xii.  22 — 29.  "  Then  was  brought  unto  him 
one  possessed  with  a  devil,  blind  and  dumb,  and  he  healed 
him,  insomuch  that  the  blind  and  dumb  both  spake  and  saw. 
And  all  the  people  were  amazed,  and  said,  Is  not  this  the 
son  of  David  1  But  when  the  Pharisees  heard  it,  they  said, 
This  fellow  doth  not  cast  out  devils,  but  by  Beelzebub  the 
prince  of  the  devils.  And  Jesus  knew  their  thoughts, 
and  said  unto  them.  Every  kingdom  divided  against  it- 
self, is  brought  to  desolation ;  aijd  every  city  or  house  di- 
vided against  itself,  shall  not  stand  ;  and  if  Satan  cast  out 
Satan,  he  is  divided  against  himself;  how  shall  then  his 
kingdom  stand  ?  And  if  I  by  Beelzebub  cast  out  devils, 
by  whom  do  your  children  cast  them  out  ?  therefore  they 
shall  be  your  judges.  But  if  I  cast  out  devils  by  the 
Spirit  of  God,  then  the  kingdom  of  God  is  come  unto 
you.  Or  else,  how  can  one  enter  into  a  strong  man's 
house,  and  spoil  his  goods,  except  he  first  bind  the  strong 
man  ?  and  then  he  will  spoil  his  house."  Compare 
Mark,  iii.  22—27,   Luke,  xi.  14—26,  also  Matthew,  ix. 


29 

32 — 34.     A  man  possessed  of  a  devil,  blind  and  dumb, 
had  been  restored  by   Jesus  to  sight  and   speech.     The 
multitude,  astonished  at  tliis  miraculous  display  of  power, 
asked,  Is  not  this  the  promised  son  of  David,  the  expected 
Messiah  ?     The  Pharisees,  indignant  that   a  carpenter's 
son  should  be  mistaken  by  the   populace  for  the  king  of 
Israel,  answer  this  question  by  a  most  malignant  charge 
against  Jesus.     "  This  fellovir  casts  out  devils,  not   by   di- 
vine power,  but  by  the  assistance  and  co-operation  of  the 
prince  of  the  devils."     Jesus  refutes  the  charge  by  this 
argument.     "  No  one  will  destroy  his  own  power.     But 
Satan  would  destroy  his  own  power  were  he  to  cast  out 
himself.     Therefore  it  is  not  by  the  assistance  of  Satan 
that  I  cast  out  devils.     No.     It  is  a  stronger  than  he  that 
hath  come  upon  him.     Here  now  is  the  proof  of  my  divine 
mission.     If  I,  by  the  Spirit  of  God,  cast  out  devils,  then 
it  is  plain  that  the  kingdom  of  God   has  come  unto  you, 
the  reign  of  the  Messiah,  the  mighty  descendant  of  David, 
under  whom  Satan  is  to   be  crushed,  has  commenced." 
Here  the  Saviour  makes  the  evidence  of  his    messiahship 
turn  on  the  fact  of  the  subjection  of  evil   spirits  to  him. 
This  is  the  very  point,  the  gist  of  the  argument.     Did  he 
know    it   or    not?    Did    the  Pharisees   tlius    understand 
him  or  not  ?     Was  the  argument  valid  or    not  ?    Should 
any  one  suppose  this  was  an  ad  Iwminera  argument,  let 
him    read   the   record    of  this   conversation   as  given  by 
the   three   evangelists.     Is   there  the  remotest  liint,   tlie 
slightest  ground  in  their  narratives  for  such  a  supposition  1 
Is  it  not   an  entire   assumption  1     Does  not  the  Saviour 
address  the   Pharisees   with   most  evident  sincerity  and 
earnestness  ?     Still  more,  was  it  necessary  to  give  addi- 
tional conjirmation  to  their   error  ?     This,  if  it  were  an 
error,  he  did   according  to  Luke,  xi.  24 — 26.     He  here 
repeats  the   same   doctrine,  in   entirely  different  phrase- 
ology.    On  what   other   occasion    did    Christ   stake    the 
3 


30 

truth  of  his  mission  on  an  untruth,  "  an  oriental  fiction  "  t 
In  what  other  case  was  he  so  complaisant  to  the  Phari- 
sees, so  tolerant  of  error  and  falsehood  1  In  the  fifteenth 
and  twenty  third  chapters  of  Matthew,  the  reader  will  find 
that  Christ  openly  denounced  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees, 
as  hypocrites,  as  fools,  blind  leaders  of  the  blind,  closing 
with  this  terrible  denunciation,  *'  Ye  serpents,  ye  genera- 
tion of  vipers,  how  can  ye  escape  the  damnation  of  hell  ?" 
Was  this  the  class  of  teachers  whose  errors  Christ  con- 
firmed  in   the  hearing  of  "  all  the  people"  ? 

Should  a  doubt  yet  lurk  in  the  mind  of  any  one,  whether 
he  might  not  have  designed  by  this  argument  merely  to  si- 
lence his  cavilling  and  supercilious  opponents,  no  room 
will  remain  for  such  a  doubt  when  we  have  consid- 
ered, 

III.  That  Christ  taught  the  same  doctrine  to  his  disci- 
pies  in  private. 

Proof.  In  Matt.  xiii.  24 — 39,  is  recorded  the  parable  of 
the  tares,  which  was  spoken  in  the  hearing  of  "  great  mul- 
titudes, that  were  gathered  together  unto  him."  In  36 — 39 
verses  we  have  this  interpretation  of  the  parable  hy  Christ 
himself.  "  Then  Jesus  sent  the  multitude  away,  and  went 
into  the  house  ;  and  his  disciples  came  unto  him,  saying, 
Declare  unto  us  the  parable  of  the  tares  of  the  field.  He 
answered  and  said  unto  them.  He  that  soweth  the  good 
seed  is  the  son  of  man  ;  the  field  is  the  world  ;  the  good 
seed  are  the  children  of  the  kingdom  ;  but  the  tares  are 
the  children  of  the  wicked  one :  the  enemy,  that  sowed 
them,  is  the  devil  ;  the  harvest  is  the  end  of  the  world  ; 
and  the  reapers  are  the  angels."  I  ask  in  the  name  of  rea- 
son, of  conscience,  and  of  common  sense,  if  words  could 
have  been  selected  more  explicit,  to  express  the  same  truth 
in  the  same  compass  ?  Words  must  fail  to  express  ideas, 
and  human  language  be  given  up  not  only  as  a  medium 
of  revelation,  but  as  a  medium  of  intercourse  between 


31 

man  and  man,  if  the  Divine  Teacher  did  not,  in  this  ex- 
planaiion  of  a  parable,  before  uttered  with  intentional 
comparative  obscurity,  assert  distinctly  the  existence  of 
an  evil  spirit,  his  influence  in  this  world,  and  the  agency 
of  angels  at  the  last  day  in  separating  the  good  from  the 
bad  among  men.*  An  accumulation  of  similar  testimony, 
after  an  explanation  so  distinct,  so  pointed,  so  express, 
were  a  needless  waste  of  time  and  paper.  The  mind, 
which  is  in  a  state  to  resist  or  explain  away  the  explana- 
tion already  given,  would  not  believe  though  one  were 
to  rise  from  the  dead.  In  relation  to  this  very  sub- 
ject the  Saviour  said,  "  because  I  tell  you  the  truth,  ye 
believe  me  not."  Is  there  no  reason  to  fear  that  a  similar 
charge  would  still  hold  good  ?  The  Jiature  of  the  truth 
itself  is,  often,  the  very  reason  why  that  truth  is  rejected. 
The  passage  quoted  from  Matthew  presents  to  every 
mind,  on  first  reading  it,  one  meaning,  and  one  meaning 
only.  It  admits  of  no  other.  This  meaning  the  Saviour 
expressed  to  his  confidential  friends  in  their  retirement, 
when  they  had  requested  him  to  explain  the  parable  of 
the  tares.  There  was  no  possible  room  for  an  ad  horn- 
inem  argument  here.  All  occasion  for  obscurity  was  re- 
moved. The  apostles  express  no  remaining  difficulty  as 
to  the  parable.  It  is  all  cleared  up.  Philologically  con- 
sidered, this  meaning  lies  on  the  surface,  and  pervades 
the  substance  of  the  passage.  Those  who  have  studied 
the  scriptures,  simply  as  a  record  of  human  opinion,  with- 
out considering  themselves  bound  to  submit  to  its  decis- 
ions, have  come  by  general  consent  to  this  conclusion, 
that  ''  Jesus  did  mean  to  teach  the  doctrine  of  diabolical 
agency.  But  he  erred.  It  was  however  the  error  of  the 
times,  from  which  it  is  not  rational  to  expect  that  any 
mind  should  have  been   entirely  free."     Whether   Amer- 

*  The  following  references  would  confirm,  if  additional  testimony 
were  needed,  the  position  taken.  Matthew,  xiii.  18,  19,  xvii.  19 — 21. 
Mark,  iv.  14,  15.     Luke,  viii.  12,  x.  17—21. 


32 

ican  rational  inquirers  are  willing  to  take  this  ground, 
remains  to  be  seen.  With  us  it  is  now  a  question  of 
philology,  2uliat  did  the  Saviour  teach  ?  That  made  out, 
the  question  is  allowed  to  be  at  an  end.  What  Jesus 
taught  we  acknowledge  to  be  true.  Philosophy,  extrane- 
ous to  the  scriptures,  whether  skeptical,  dogmatical  or 
critical,  knows  nothing,  and  can  teach  nothing  upon  the 
subject.  The  doctrines  of  the  Bible,  in  relation  to  the  un- 
seen, spiritual,  eternal  world,  are  yet  held,  in  the  land  of  the 
Pilgrims,  to  be  sound  philosophy.  The  private  opinion  of 
the  Saviour,  as  divulged  to  his  chosen  companions  and 
friends  in  their  most  secret  retirement,  we  have  found  to 
coincide  with  the  opinion  which  he  openly  advanced  to  the 
Jew's  at  large,  and  to  the  Pharisees  as  a  sect.  He  did  not 
teach  a  Pythagorean,  esoteric,  Eleusinean  system  of  doc- 
trines, to  gull  and  hoodwink  the  people,  while  to  the 
initiated  he  intrusted  the  key  which  unlocked  the  whole 
hiystery.  His  opinion  was  not  cloaked  in  ambiguous 
generalities.  It  was  distinctly  uttered,  and  definitely 
understood.  Can  this  be  said  of  all  ivho  claim  to  he 
Christian  teachers  ? 

Additional  proof  as  to  the  Saviour's  private  opinion  is 
unnecessary.  Other  related  truths  will  receive  still  fur- 
ther elucidation  from  a  passage  in  the  gospel  of  John. 
This  is  a  part  of  his  instructions  in  that  solemn  interview, 
which  took  place  just  before  he  was  betrayed  into  the 
hands  of  men.  The  shepherd  was  about  to  be  smitten, 
and  the  sheep  to  be  scattered.  Jesus  was  aware  of  his 
approaching  end,  of  the  conflict  before  him,  of  the  agony 
he  was  to  endure.  Though  desirous  of  avoiding,  he  was 
still  resigned  to  meet  it.  "  Not  my  will  but  thine  be  done." 
If  ever  he  was  honest  and  open  in  his  instructions,  one 
would  think,  from  the  account  given  by  the  apostle  whom 
he  loved,  that  it  was  on  this  occasion  Jesus  unbosomed 
all  his  heart  to  his  sorrowing  disciples.     "  I  tell  you  the 


33 

truth  ;  it  is  expedient  for  you  that  I  go  away  ;  for  if  I  go 
not  away,  the  comforter  will  not  come  unto  you  ;  but  if  I 
depart,  I  will  send  him  unto  you.  And  when  he  is  come, 
he  will  reprove  the  world  of  sin,  and  of  righteousness,  and 
of  judgment ;  of  sin,  because  they  believe  not  on  me ;  of 
righteousness,  because  I  go  to  my  Father,  and  ye  see  me 
no  more  ;  of  judgment,  because  the  prince  of  this  world 
is  judged."  John,  xvi.  7 — II.  What  does  the  Saviour 
mean  when  he  says  the  Holy  Spirit  shall  reprove  or  con- 
vince "  of  judgment,  because  the  prince  of  this  world  is 
judged"?  Does  he  here  mean  '' the  principle  of  evil," 
or  an  actual  person  ?  If  the  former,  what  does  he  mean 
when  he  says,  the  spirit  shall  convince  *'  of  sin  "  ?  Does 
not  a  plain  understanding,  or  a  profound  and  erudite  un- 
derstanding perceive,  that,  when  the  Saviour  asserts  that 
the  spirit  shall  convince  of  sin,  of  righteousness  and  of 
judgment ;  adding,  of  sin,  because  they  believe  not  on 
me  ;  of  righteousness,  because  I  go  to  the  Father  ;  and 
of  judgment,  because  the  prince  of  this  world  is  judged  ; 
he  meant  to  assert  some  distinction,  some  diversity  of 
truth?  But  according  to  "the  principle  of  evil"  inter- 
pretation, the  Saviour  is  unmeaning,  or  at  least  tautologi- 
cal in  his  declarations.  A  candid  mind,  unwarped  by 
theory,  cannot  help  seeing  that  Jesus  taught  here,  as  in  a 
multitude  of  other  cases,  the  existence  of  a  mighty  evil 
spirit,  ''  the  prince  of  this  world,"  "  an  archangel  ruined." 
This,  he  solemnly  assures  his  disciples,  is  one  of  the  doc- 
trines which  the  Holy  Spirit  shall  specially  make  known 
to  men.  The  following  remarks  by  Hess,  are  well  worth 
the  attention  and  solemn  thought  of  all,  whose  minds  are 
not  yet  callous  to  evidence,  who  are  not  yet  compromised 
to  party,  who  are  inquiring  for  truth,  and  willing  to  re- 
ceive it,  coming  from  whatever  quarter  and  with  whatever 
odium.  "In  this  passage,  Jesus  is  not  addressing  the 
illiterate  populace,  but  he  is  speaking  to  his  own  apostles. 
3* 


34 

Nor  is  he  conversing  of  unimportant  opinions  which 
might  yet  be  tolerated  for  sometime,  but  of  the  future 
preaching  of  these  teachers  of  the  world.  Nor  is  he 
speaking  of  certain  modifications  which  the  discourses  of 
the  apostles  might  assume  from  their  own  infirmities,  or 
of  the  erroneous  ideas  of  some  of  their  hearers,  but  of  the 
contents  of  their  gospel,  as  derived  from  the  Spirit  of 
God,  who  should  teach  the  truth,  regardless  of  the  cir- 
cumstance whether  it  accorded  with  their  former  ideas  or 
contradicted  them." 

A  third  argument  is,  The  so'ipiurcs  assure  us  that 
Christ  possessed  and  exeited  the  power  of  expelling  devils 
from  individuals  tormented  by  them. 

Proof.  Matthew,  iv.  24.  "  They  brought  unto  him 
all  sick  people  that  were  taken  with  divers  diseases  and 
torments,  and  those  that  were  possessed  with  devils,  and 
those  tha^t  were  lunatic,  and  those  that  had  the  palsy  ;  and 
he  healed  them."  viii.  16.  "  They  brought  unto  him 
many  that  were  possessed  with  devils  ;  and  he  cast  out 
the  spirits  with  his  word,  and  healed  all  that  were  sick." 
Mark,  i.  34.  "  He  healed  many  that  were  sick  of  divers 
diseases,  and  cast  out  many  devils ;  and  suffered  not  the 
devils  to  speak,  because  they  knew  him."  iii.  11.  ''  Un- 
clean spirits,  when  they  saw  him,  fell  down  before  him, 
and  cried,  saying,  thou  art  the  Son  of  God."  Is  this  the 
same  "principle  of  evil"  that,  in  the  account  of  the 
temptation,  is  supposed  to  have  called  upon  Christ  to  fall 
down  and  worship  it  ?  Tn  the  preceding  quotation,  it  is 
intelligent,  but  speechless  ;  it  is  here  both  obeisant  and 
communicative.  In  each  case  there  is  a  striking  external 
appearance  of  personality.  The  artless  historians,  or 
rather  this  abstract  "  principle"  has  a  wonderful  aptitude, 
it  must  be  confessed,  for  keeping  up  this  fabulous  veri- 
similitude. It  is  done  to  the  life.  But  to  proceed  with 
the  evidence.     Luke,  iv.  40,  41.    *'  Now  when  the  sun 


was  setting,  all  that  had  any  sick  with  divers  diseases, 
brought  them  unto  him  ;  and  he  laid  his  hands  on  every 
one  of  them,  and  healed  them.  And  devils  also  came  out 
of  many,  crying  out  and  saying,  Thou  art  Christ  the  Son 
of  God.  And  he,  rebuking  them,  suffered  them  not  to 
speak  ;  for  they  knew  that  he  was  Christ."  How  did 
disease,  or  evil  principle,  which  are  generally  thought 
modifications  of  matter  or  of  mind,  rather  than  subjective 
of  intelligence  itself,  know  this  great  truth,  that  Christ 
was  the  Messiah  ?  A  truth,  unknown  to  the  Scribes,  and 
the  Pharisees,  and  the  High  Priest,  and  the  Sanhedrim,  and 
the  wise  men,  and  the  rulers,  and  the  mighty  men  of  the 
age  ;  a  truth,  revealed  to  Simon  Barjona,  not  by  flesh  and 
blood,  not  by  any  human  intelligence  or  instrumentality, 
but  by  the  Father,  who  is  in  heaven?  Or  how  should 
maniacs  and  lunatics,  who  had  been  thus  for  a  *'  loner 
time,"  know  him  to  be  the  Messiah  ?  The  whole  minis- 
try of  Christ,  from  his  baptism  to  his  crucifixion,  is  not 
thought  to  have  exceeded  three  years.  Let  the  reader 
examine  the  recorded  cures  of  demoniacs,  and  say  whether 
appearances  warrant  the  belief  that  their  insanity  was,  at 
the  utmost,  of  only  three  years^  duration.  This  supposi- 
tion will  throw  all  these  cures  into  the  last  year  of  Christ's 
ministry,  a  supposition  plainly  untrue.  Many  of  them 
occurred  in  the  early  part  of  his  ministry,  probably,  much 
the  largest  number  of  such  cures  were  effected  in  the 
first  eighteen  months  of  it.  But  what  shall  we  say  of  the 
young  man,  whose  cure  is  recorded  in  Mark,  ix.  17 — 29  ? 
His  father,  when  asked  by  Jesus,  how  long  is  it  ago  since 
this  came  unto  him,  replied,  of  a  child.  This  was  one  of 
the  most  violent  cases  recorded  in  the  gospels,  yet  of  the 
same  general  nature  with  others.  "  Jesus  rebuked  the  foul 
spirit,  saying  unto  him,  Thou  dumb  and  deaf  spirit,  I 
charge  thee  come  out  of  him,  and  enter  no  more  into 
him  ;   [did  Christ  secure  immunity  from   subsequent  dis- 


36 

ease  ?]  and  the  spirit  cried  and  rent  him  sore  and  came 
out  of  him."  Does  this  look  like  the  cessation  of  merely 
natural  disease  1 — Again,  did  the  maniacs  ever  mistake 
either  of  the  82  apostles  and  disciples  for  the  Messiah  ? 
How  should  madmen  always  have  judged  thus  correctly  ? 
A  large  number  of  passages  like  those  already  quoted 
must  be  wholly  omitted  ;  as  also  a  multitude  of  particular 
cures,  such  as  that  of  the  two  men  among  the  tombs,  of 
the  daughter  of  the  Syrophenician  woman,  &c.  &c.  each 
of  which,  if  closely  examined,  would  of  itself,  establish  the 
position  taken  as  beyond  the  possibility  of  rational  doubU 
The  forecited  passages  from  Matthew,  Mark,  and  Luke, 
are  however  amply  sufficient,  and  at  once,  short,  pertinent, 
and  coriclusive.  In  these  passages,  the  fact,  that  Christ 
expelled  demons,  devils,  or  evil  spirits,  is  expressed  in 
language  so  diverse  and  varied,  generic  and  specific,  as 
to  admit  of  no  doubt  what  the  loritcrs  intended  to  assert 
If  the  testimony  is  intelligible,  are  the  witnesses  credible  ? 
The  authority  of  the  witnesses^  it  is  believed,  is  the  only 
reason  why  doubts,  as  to  the  import  of  their  testimony, 
were  ever  expressed.  Over  similar  language  in  Philo  or 
Josephus,  the  veriest  tyro  could  not  stumble.  Were  such 
miracles  ascribed  to  Apollonius  of  Tyana,  and  not  to 
Jesus  of  Nazareth,  who  would  doubt  as  to  their  mean- 
ing?* 

A  fourth  argument  is.  The  scriptures  declare  that  Christ 
communicated  this  power  of  expelling  demons  to  his  apos- 
tles, and  that  they  repeatedly  exerted  it. 

Proof.     Matthew,  x.  1,  8.  "  And  when   he  had  called 

*  Beausobre,  in  his  Remarks  upon  the  New  Testament,  says, 
"  some  think  these,  (the  demoniacal  possessions,)  were  natural  dis- 
eases, though  the  causes  were  unknown.  To  this  opinion  I  sub- 
scribe. My  reason  is,  that  the  miracles  of  our  Saviour,  who  cured 
them,  will  appear  to  be  more  wonderful  (plus  grands)  on  this  than 
on  the  other  supposition.  Which  is  the  greater  miracle,  for  inteUi- 
gent  beings  to  obey  a  command  of  Christ,  or  for  him  to  cure  diseases 
by  his  simple  word?"  Strange  as  it  may  seem,  Lardner  counte- 
nances this  "  rational"  mode  of  interpretation.     Any  one  who  wishes 


37 

unto  him  his  twelve  disciples,  he  gave  them  power  against 
unclean  spirits,  to  cast  tJiem  out,  and  to  heal  all  manner 
of  sickness  and  all  manner  of  disease.  .  .  .  Heal  the  sick, 
cleanse  the  lepers,  raise  the  dead,  cast  out  devils,  freely 
ye  have  received,  freely  give."  Compare  Mark,  iii.  13, 
14,  vi.  7,  13.  Luke,  ix.  1.  Two  remarks  suggest  them- 
selves on  these  passages.  Does  any  one  suppose  that 
when  Christ  selected  his  apostles  and  sent  them  forth, 
commanding  them  to  "  cast  out  devils,"  he  intended  to 
impart  to  them  merely  the  ponder  of  curing  natural  dis- 
eases, lohetlier  of  a  more  or  less  aggravated  nature  ? 
Besides  the  want  of  evidence  for  such  a  use  of  language, 
the  awkwardness  of  such  an  expression,  and  the  needless 
repetition  of  ideas,  which  that  interpretation  would  force 
upon  the  commission,  there  is  another  answer  to  the  ob- 
jection, less  apparent  at  first,  but  not  less  conclusive. 
This  extensive  commission,  "  heal  the  sick,  cleanse  the 
lepers,  raise  the  dead  and  cast  out  devils,"  is,  according 
to  the  three  evangelical  historians,  limited  to  the  twelve 
apostles.  But  in  Luke,  tenth  chapter,  we  read  that  "  the 
J^ord  appointed  other  seventy  also,  and  sent  them  two  and 
two  before  his  face,  into  every  city  and  place  whither  he 
would  come.  .  . .  And  into  whatsoever  city  ye  enter  and 
they  receive  you,  eat  such  things  as  are  set  before  you  ; 
and  heal  the  sick  that  are  therein,  and  say  unto  them,  the 
kingdom  of  God  is  come  unto  you."  That  is,  in  other 
words,  "  be  content  with  your  fare,  heal  all  the  diseases 
you  meet  with,  and  preach  the  reign  of  the  Messiah." 
*'  Heal  the  sick  that  are  therein,"  is  as  general,  as  un- 

for  a  medley  of  learning,  ingenuity,  contradiction  and  absurdity,  will 
find  it  in  Lardner's  four  sermons  on  demoniacs.  He  acknowledges 
that  the  apostles  actually  believed  in  demoniacal  possessions  ;  and 
that  Christ  knew  better,  but^did  not  rectify  the  error.  Dr.  Lardner 
was  a  learned,  and  somewhat  ingenuous  Unitarian.  He  seems  to 
have  believed  in  the  existence  of  Satan,  yet,  from  his  qualified  use 
of  language,  it  is  somewhat  doubtful  what  he  really  believed,  and 
what  he  only  said  in  reference  to  the  prejudices  of  his  hearers  and 
the  times. 


38 

limited  a  commission  as  could  have  been  issued  for  the 
purpose  of  curing  simply  natural  diseases.  So  these  dis- 
ciples understood  it.  But  it  is  very  plain  that  they  did  not 
think  it  communicated  to  them  the  ability  of  ejecting  evil 
spirits.  For  we  read  in  the  same  chapter,  that  "  the 
seventy  returned  with  joy,  saying  Lord,  eveji  the  devils 
are  subject  unto  us  through  thy  name."  It  is  evident 
that  these  disciples  had  unexpectedly  found  themselves 
in  the  possession  of  miraculous  powers,  greatly  beyond 
the  letter  of  their  commission,  and  rejoiced  in  the  dis- 
covery. This  certainly  would  not  have  been  the  fact, 
had  they  understood  this  commission  originally  in  the  sense 
now  controverted,  i.  e.  liad  tliey  understood  the  commission^ 
"  heed  the  sick  that  are  therein,'^  to  have  involved  the  poicer 
of  casting  out  evil  spirits.  There  could  have  been  no  oc- 
casion for  them  to  express  their  joyful  surprise  to  Christ, 
on  finding  that  they  possessed  simply  the  poivers  they 
knew  to  have  been  delegated  to  them.  To  have  done  this 
would  have  been  a  tacit  impeachment  of  the  veracity,  or 
the  power  of  their  Lord.  But  additional  and  unsuspected 
powers,  imparted  to  them  through  the  name  of  Christ, 
afforded  a  natural  and  a  suitable  occasion  for  an  expres- 
sion of  their  joy  and  their  surprise.  The  two  expressions 
in  the  apostolical  commission,  "  heal  the  sick,  cast  out 
devils,"  are  not  synonymous,  neither  does  the  former  in- 
volve the  latter,  the  disciples  being  judges.  "  To  cast  out 
devils,"  in  their  judgment,  was  something  different  from 
''healing  the  sick"  of  merely  natural  diseases.  Who  would 
best  understand  the  import  of  their  commission,  those  dis- 
ciples or  modern  critics  ]  rather,  Christ  himself,  or  the  de- 
niers  of  demoniacal  possessions  ?  Had  it  not  been  true,  that 
the  power  of  expelling  demons  was  superadded  to  that  of 
curing  diseases,  or  had  it  been  true  that  both  these  were 
the  same,  would  it  not  have  been  natural,  nay,  would  not 
common  honesty  and  the  interests  of  truth  have  required 


of  Christ,  when  the  disciples  thus  returned,  some  explana- 
tion of  his  commission,  or  some  correction  of  their  error? 
Might  it  not,  under  such  circumstances,  have  been  most 
reasonably  expected,  that  he  would  have  said  to  them 
something  like  this,  ''  the  joy  you  express  is  without  pro- 
per cause.  When  I  sent  you  forth  to  cure  diseases,  your 
commission  was  unlimited.  How  could  you  be  surprised 
that  diseases  of  any  form  or  of  the  most  malignant  nature 
should  be  cured,  when  that  was  the  intent  of  my  com- 
mission?" Instead  of  this,  Jesus  confirms  the  fact,  assert- 
ed by  these  disciples  to  have  occurred  beyond  their 
expectation.  He  said  unto  them,  ''  I  beheld  Satan,  as 
lightning,  fall  from  heaven.  Behold,  I  give  unto  you 
power  to  tread  on  serpents  and  scorpions,  and  over  all 
the  power  of  the  enemy  ;  and  nothing  shall  by  any  means 
hurt  you.  Notwithstanding,  in  this  rejoice  not,  that  the 
spirits  are  subject  unto  you  ;  but  rather  rejoice,  because 
your  names  are  written  in  heaven."* 

A  second  remark  on  this  apostolical  commission  is  also 
deserving  of  notice.  "  Heal  the  sick,  cleanse  the  lepers, 
raise  the  dead,  cast  out  devils."     Here  all  admit  miraculous 


*  A  remark  may  here  be  made  that,  perhaps,  will  serv^e  to  explain 
a  passage  of  somewhat  doubtful  import.  The  twelve  apostles  and 
the  seventy  disciples  were  commissioned  and  sent  forth  at  different 
times.  There  is  no  evidence  that  they  all  knew  each  other  ;  or  if 
the  apostles  knew  these  disciples,  they  could  not  have  known  them 
to  possess  the  power  of  expelling  demons,  as  Jesus  at  this  time  alone 
knew  this  fact.  Hence,  when  "  John  saw  one  casting  out  devils  in 
the  name  of  Christ  and  forbade  him,"  this  may,  for  aught  that  appears, 
have  been  one  of  the  seventy.  As  the  commission  of  both  classes 
extended,  at  this  time,  only  "  to  the  lost  sheep  of  the  house  of  Israel, 
and  they  were  forbidden  to  go  into  the  way  of  the  Gentiles,  and  into 
any  city  of  the  Samaritans,"  the  probability  is  great,  that  the  apostles 
would  have  met  with  some  of  the  disciples  in  their  various,  yet 
limited  peregrinations.  When  the  answer  of  Christ  to  John  is  con- 
sidered, "  forbid  him  not,  for  there  is  no  man,  which  shall  do  a 
miracle  in  my  name,  that  can  lightly  speak  evil  of  me,"  this  proba- 
bility rises  very  near  to  certainty.  In  the  same  way  we  may  also 
illustrate  the  forecited  argument  of  Christ  to  the  Pharisees,  "  if  I  by 
Beelzebub  cast  out  devils,  by  whom  do  your  children  cast  them  out  ?" 
From  this  passage  Storr  infers,  that  "  this  power  of  expelling  demons 


40 

powers  were  conferred  on  the  apostles,  independent  of  the 
voluntary  agency  of  the  subjects  affected.  "  In  healing  the 
sick,  cleansing  the  lepers,  raising  the  dead,"  the  will  of  the 
individual,  cured,  or  cleansed,  or  restored  to  life,  7ieed  not 
be  consulted.  But  how  stands  it  with  the  last  particular, 
*'  cast  out  devils"?  If  this  mean  cast  out  "  the  evil  prin- 
ciple," was  this  to  be  done  without  the  voluntary  agency 
of  the  persons  themselves  ?  Is  it  credible  that  bad  men, 
very  bad  men,  were,  in  the  time  of  Christ,  by  an  immedi- 
ate act  of  divine  power,  altogether  independent  of  their 
wish  and  will  and  effort,  yes,  contrary  to  these,  against 
their  express  and  earnest  entreaty,  cleansed  of  their  evil 
principles  ?  Is  this  consistent  with  Unitarian  notions  of 
"  moral  liberty"?  Is  it  consistent  with  any  man's  com- 
mon sense  ?  Does  not  the  intelligent  Unitarian  perceive 
that  in  adopting  such  a  mode  of  interpretation,  he  slides 
into  what  he  considers  one  of  the  most  obnoxious  tenets 
of  five-pointed  Calvinism, — "irresistible  grace"?  that  he 
really  destroys  free  agency,  and  makes  mere  physical 
machines  of  these  men  ?  And  if  of  these,  why  not  of 
others  ?    Why  not  of  all  ? 

was  possessed  by  others  besides  the  followers  of  Christ."  But  this 
is  neither  a  necessary,  nor  a  natural  inference.  Besides,  such  an 
interpretation  would  destroy  the  whole  force  of  Christ's  argument. 
Surely  if  others  possessed  the  power  of  expelling  demons,  independ- 
ent of  Christ,  his  possessing  that  power  would  not  prove  his  messiah- 
ship,  any  more  than  their  possessing  it  would  prove  their  messiahship. 
The  question,  "  by  whom  do  your  children  cast  them  out  ?"  may  very 
naturally  mean,  according  to  the  well  known  latitude  allowed  to  those 
words,  the  apostles — the  disciples,  who  were  Jews,  and,  probably, 
most  of  them  of  the  sect  of  the  Pharisees,  before  called  to  follow 
Christ.  These  apostles  and  disciples  would  all  with  one  consent,  if 
questioned  as  to  the  origin  of  their  power  over  Satan,  have  ascribed 
it  to  Christ.  The  appeal  then  to  these  eighty  two  individuals,  "  they 
shall  be  your  judges,"  known,  as  they  must  have  been,  in  different 
parts  of  Judea,  and  probably  to  many  of  his  auditors,  to  the  Pharisees 
among  the  rest,  was  peculiarly  pertinent  and  forcible.  This  view 
gives  to  the  argument  an  appositeness  and  force,  hitherto  in  some 
degree  overlooked,  and  is  also  simple,  natural,  and  unencumbered 
with  any  difficulty.  Whether  it  is  the  true  interpretation,  let  the 
reader  judge. 


41 

From  what  has  been  said  under  this  argument,  it  fol- 
lows irresistibly,  that  "  casting  out  devils,"  whatever  it 
may  mean,  does  not  mean  "curing  the  sick"  of  any 
simply  natural  diseases,  nor  rooting  out  **  the  evil  prin- 
ciple." What  does  it  mean  1  '*  Casting  out  devils." 
Nothing  more  nor  less.  On  the  whole  subject  of  de- 
moniacal possessions,  I  cannot  better  consult  the  instruc- 
tion of  the  reader,  or  the  strength  of  my  own  argument, 
than  by  quoting  the  following  passage  from  Storr. 

"Some  of  the  narratives  of  the  influence  of  demons  are 
of  such  a  nature,  that  no  reasonable  exposition  can  well  be 
given  of  them,  without  admitting  the  reality  of  demoniacal 
agency.  Such,  for  example,  is  the  account  of  the  expul- 
sion of  the  devils  from  the  two  possessed  men  in  the 
country  of  the  Gergesenes.  Jesus  could  not  have  addres- 
sed those  demons  and  granted  them  permission  to  enter 
into  the  swine,  if  he  had  not  really  regarded  demons  as 
the  cause  of  the  disease  of  these  individuals.  Otherwise 
he  would  have  confirmed  an  error  of  his  contemporaries,  not 
only  with  words,  but  actucdly  hy  the  performance  of  a 
miracle.  We  must  carefully  distinguish  between  the  ex- 
pressions, '  curing  a  demoniac  or  one  possessed  of  a 
devil,'  and  '  expelling  demons,  or  commanding  them  to 
depart.'  It  might  indeed  be  conceded,  that,  according 
to  the  usage  of  the  language,  the  expression  demoniac, 
signified  a  person  affected  by  a  particular  natural  disease ; 
and  that  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament  used  it  in  its 
common  acceptation,  although  that  acceptation  of  the 
word  originated  in  an  erroneous  opinion ;  just  as  the 
word  lunatic  could  with  propriety  be  applied  to  a  certain 
species  of  diseased  persons,  because,  though  it  originated 
in  error,  it  had  by  usage  become  the  customary  name  of 
persons  affected  by  a  certain  disease  ;  and  yet  it  would 
by  no  means  follow,  that  the  person  who  thus  iises  the 
word  in  its  ordinary  acceptation,  must  have  entertained 


42 

the  erroneous  opinion,  that  the  subjects  of  lunacy  were 
under  the  particular  influence  of  the  moon.  Thus,  when 
the  astronomer  uses  the  erroneous  phraseology,  '  the  sun 
rises,  or  the  sun  goes  down,'  no  one  will  think  of  charg- 
ing him  with  holding  that  vulgar  opinion.  But  if  we 
suppose,  that,  when  Jesus  addressed  the  demons,  and 
when  he  commanded  them  to  be  silent  or  to  depart,  he  at 
the  same  time  believed  the  disease  to  be  entirely  natural, 
and  to  have  no  connexion  with  demoniacal  influence  ;  we 
could  not  believe  that  Jesus  merely  used  a  peculiar  cus- 
tomary expression,  which  usage  had  made  proper  ;  hut  we 
must  believe  that  he  actually  confirmed  an  erroneous  opin- 
ion hy  the  language  tohich  he  used.  In  reference  to  the 
possession,  mentioned  Matthew,  viii.  28,  Hess  remarks, 
*  the  fact  that  these  demoniacs  had,  agreeably  to  the  nar- 
rative itself,  actually  been  delivered  from  their  affection 
(v.  32)  before  anything  happened  to  the  herd  of  swine, 
proves  that  it  was  not  the  possessed  persons  who  threw 
themselves  among  the  swine  in  a  fit  of  madness,  but  that  it 
Vt'as  the  devils  who  had  been  expelled  from  these  persons.' 
And  it  is  evident  from  the  history  of  this  event,  that  its 
object  was  to  expose  to  view,  (in  reference  to  the  defence 
of  himself,  which  Jesus  was  compelled  to  make  against 
the  most  horrible  slanders,)  the  number,  legion,  and  ma- 
licrnity  of  these  demons,  and  their  actual,  though  involun- 
tary subjection  to  Jesus ;  and  the  utmost  publicity  was 
given  to  this  matter  by  the  incident  of  the  swine.  Rela- 
tive to  the  cures  of  the  demoniacs  in  general,  Hess  re- 
marks, '  it  cannot  be  denied,  that  the  sacred  historians 
did  actually  mean  vexatious  spirits,  which  grievously  op- 
pressed the  bodies  and  minds  of  men.  Agreeably  to  their 
intention,  therefore,  the  numerous  examples  of  the  cures 
of  demoniacs  acquire  a  peculiar  importance,  inasmuch  as 
Jesus  appears,  not  only  as  their  deliverer  from  bodily 
evil,  but  as  the  conqueror  of  hostile  powers  from  the  in- 


43 

visible  world.'  Paulus,  in  his  Commentary  on  the  New 
Testament,  has  maintained  that  *  the  cures  of  the  demo- 
niacs were  nothing  else  than  cures  of  diseases  of  the  mind, 
which  were  effected  hij  the  opinion  in  the  deranged  per- 
sons, that  the  demons  which  possessed  them  could  not 
exist  near  that  man  of  God,  the  Messiah  ;  and  therefore 
that  they  must  necessarily  flee  at  his  approach.'  In  re- 
ply to  this,  a  Tubingen  writer  justly  remarks,  '  it  is 
altogether  incredible  that  in  so  short  a  time,  and  in  the 
population  of  one  small  country,  a  mere  opinion  should  of 
itself,  in  so  many  instances,  have  effected  a  permanent 
cure  of  mental  derangement,  a  disease  generally  resulting 
from  some  radical  disorganization  of  the  body  ;  or  that  in 
so  many  cases  it  should  happen,  that  just  at  the  precise 
time  when  Jesus  approached  such  unfortunate  beings,  th« 
bodily  causes  of  their  derangement  should  in  so  many  in- 
stances have  spontaneously  vanished,  and  their  minds 
have  been  restored  by  mere  chance.'  " 

Such  a  belief  as  that  attributed  to  Paulus  in  the  preced- 
ing extract,  requires  a  degree  of  faith  "  a  thousand  times 
greater"  than  that  held  by  the  Orthodox.  Yet  he  consid- 
ered himself  a  7nost  rational  believer.  The  mode  in  which 
these  evil  spirits  were  connected  with  or  affected  particular 
individuals,  who  can  define  ?  The  fact  of  such  a  connexion 
and  such  an  influence  who  can  deny  1  "  The  phrases  in 
which  the  demons  are  spoken  of,  "  being  in,"  and  "  going 
out,"  or  "  being  driven  out,"  are  used,  the  first  to  denote 
the  influence  of  the  demon  on  the  individual,  the  latter 
two  to  denote  the  cessation  or  removal  of  such  influence. 
Christ  possessed  and  employed  the  power  to  destroy 
this  visible  mfluence  of  the  devil,  in  a  visible  manner. 
The  like  power  he  gave  to  his  apostles,  and  they  also 
frequently  exerted  it."  Beyond  this,  to  attempt  definition, 
were  to  be  wise  above  what  is  written.  If  the  philosophy 
of  the  day  would  allow  us  to  retain  the  natural  distinction 


44 

of  Ji7ial  and  efficient  cause,  the  quotation  above  made 
would  show  that  on  the  former  of  these  something  might 
be  said. 

I  cannot  enter  fully  into  the  subject  of  demoniacs. 
My  argument  does  not  require  it.  Yet  I  cannot  say  that 
I  am  satisfied  with  any  exhibition  of  this  subject,  which 
has  fallen  under  my  eye.  President  Appleton  has  written 
more  logically,  and  more  to  the  purpose,  than  any  other 
writer.  Yet  Lectures,  addressed  to  Under  Graduates, 
would  hardly  admit  a  full  statement  of  the  subject.  He 
has,  however,  stated  fairly  the  pretended  arguments  of 
Farmer,  Lardner,  and  Sykes,  and  annihilated  them.  His 
amenity  of  manner  is  equalled  only  by  the  pungency  of 
his  logic.  Whoever  seeks  for  truth  on  this  subject,  may 
be  greatly  aided  by  President  Appleton,  whose  Lectures 
are  less  known  and  read  than  they  deserve  to  be. 

The  word  translated  devils,  in  the  plural  number,  would 
be  more  literally  rendered  by  the  word  demons.  The  ques- 
tion arises,  What  did  this  word  mean  in  Judea  in  the  time 
of  Christ  ?  To  settle  this  has  called  forth  much  investi- 
gation. President  Appleton  gives  the  result  of  this  in- 
vestigation thus  :  "  The  word,  dcemon,  is  very  general, 
and  corresponds,  in  a  great  degree,  to  the  English  word, 
spirit.  It  does  not  designate  the  moral  character  to 
which  it  is  applied.  It  is  used  in  relation  to  the  supreme 
God,  by  Plato  and  Isocrates.  It  was  used  by  certain  phi- 
losophers, and  afterward  by  some  of  the  Christian  Fathers, 
to  signify  evil  spirits  of  a  rank  superior  to  mankind.  It 
was  likewise  used,  and,  I  apprehend,  very  commonly,  to 
signify  the  souls  of  dead  men.  The  evangelists  did  not 
apply  the  term  either  in  the  first  or  last  of  these  senses, 
but  in  the  second.  They  did  not  assert  that  demoniacs 
were  disordered  by  the  supreme  Deity,  or  by  the  spirits 
of  the  dead,  but  by  spirits  of  a  malignant  character,  and 
of  a  rank  superior  to  man.     The  term  is  not  used,  there- 


45 

fore,  in  the  New  Testament,  in  a  sense  unknown  amono- 
the  Greeks."  President  Appleton  has  given  the  sense,  in 
which  the  evangelists  used  the  word,  correctly.  It  may 
be  doubted,  however,  whether,  in  classical  use,  it  had  not 
a  still  greater  latitude  of  meaning  than  he  has  assigned  it. 
He,  who  wishes  to  know  the  wlwle  trutli^  must  not  depend 
on  the  authorities  cited  by  Farmer  and  Lardner,  who  had 
a  theory  to  support,  but  must  look  farther.  He  should 
consult  the  Commentary  of  Proclus  on  the  First  Alcibiades 
of  Plato,  which  he  will  find  subjoined  to  Taylor's  trans- 
lation, and  especially  the  work  of  J.  G.  Mayer,  published 
at  Tubingen,  1780,  entitled,  Historia  Diaboli.  His  first 
chapter  is  full  of  information.  In  it  he  treats,  to  use  his 
own  words,  de  exsistentia  Diaboli,  daemonumque,  nee  ex 
ratione,  nee  traditione,  apud  Chaldceos,  Persas,  JEgyptios, 
Graecos  ut  Pythagoram,  Platonem,  nee  ex  Judaeorum 
scriptis,  sed  ex  sola  revelatione,  demonstrahili ;  contra 
Adaemonistas  crassiores,  SadducaBos  subtiliores,  speciatim 
Semlerum  Tellerumque.* 

I  have  already  endeavored  to  show,  that  the  explana- 
tion of  the  cures  of  demoniacs  by  the  curing  of  simply 
natural  disease,  is  wholly  insufficient.  President  Appleton 
has  argued  the  case  of  the  cures  of  the  demoniacs  among 
the  tombs,  with  irresistible  effect  on  every  mind,  disposed 
to  take  the  scriptural  account  to  be  what  it  professes  to 
be.     See  his  twenty-seventh  Lecture. 

I  wish  to  present  a  somewhat  different  view  of  this 

case,  but  tending  to  the  same  point.     This  cure  is  re- 

*  Those  to  whom  the  words,  "  fictions  of  oriental  mythology,"  are 
in  the  place  of  sense  and  argument,  might  do  well  to  think,  and  think- 
ing, to  answer.  Quid,  quseso,  communem  illam  persuasionem,  de 
Deo  bono  maloque,  quorum  neuter  ab  altero  dependeat^  apud  Chal- 
daeos,  Persas,  Magos,  ^Egyptios,  Chiuenses  magis  peperit,  quae 
Manichaeismi  ante  Manetem,oranes  terras,  ad  ortum  soils  et  occasurn 
sitas  pervadentis,  causa  exstitit,  quam  depravata  ilia  de  auctore  mali 
traditio  ?  Whence  the  Ophiolatria  of  .-Egypt,  India,  Scandinavia, 
and  Mexico,  except  from  the  influence  of  the  Old  Serpent,  auetov 
mali  ? 

4* 


46 

corded  in  Mark,  v.  1—20.  Matthew,  viii.  28—34.  Luke, 
viii.  26 — 36,  passages  which  the  reader  is  requested  to 
examine  carefully. 

Lardner  states  three  hypotheses  adopted  to  explain  the 
destruction  of  the  herd  of  swine.  Christ  either  commu- 
nicated the  disease,  (inscmiti/,)  with  which  the  two  men 
were  affected,  to  the  swine  ;  or  these  men  drove  them 
down  the  hill ;  or  evil  spirits  were  cast  out  of  them,  and 
suffered  to  enter  the  swine,  by  which  they  were  driven 
into  the  deep.  He  rejects  the  first  as  unreasonable.  He 
adopts  the  second,  as  do  rational  christians  generally. 
The  Orthodox  adopt  the  third.  Let  us  examine  the  ra- 
tional theory.  If  the  two  maniacs  drove  the  swine  into 
the  deep,  (to  say  nothing  of  the  difficulty  [impossibility  ?] 
of  the  attempt,  and  not  to  ask  what  the  keepers  were 
about,)  they  cither  drove  them  before  they  ivere  cured,  or 
afterwards.  If  they  drove  them  before,  while  they  were 
yet  maniacs,  why  should  the  people  so  earnestly  have  be- 
sought Christ  to  depart  out  of  their  coast  for  curing 
afflicted  maniacs,  and  preventing  farther  mischief?  Was 
it  common  in  other  cases,  when  Christ  had  cured  the 
sick,  to  beseech  him  to  be  gone  ?  Would  it  not  have  been 
more  rational  in  this  instance  to  have  besought  him  to 
stay  1  or  were  they,  one  and  all,  desirous  of  a  further 
destruction  of  their  property  ?  If  they  drove  them  after- 
wards, were  not  the  maniacs  more  insane  after  their 
insanity  was  cured,  than  while  their  madness  raged  1 

From  the  narrative  of  the  evangelists,  it  is  evident,  that 
the  cure,  in  some  degree,  preceded  the  destruction  of  the 
swine.  There  is  no  hint  nor  shadow  of  a  hint  that  the 
men  were  themselves  the  cause  of  this  destruction  ;  still 
less,  if  less  be  possible,  that  they  were  this  cause  after 
they  were  restored  to  "  their  right  mind."  This  supposi- 
tion is  not  only  gratuitous  and  without  evidence,  but 
at^ainst  the  whole  mass  of  evidence.     Yet  Lardner  says, 


47 

"  when  lie  had  imagined  the  thought  of  gratifying  the 
evil  spirits  by  which  he  imagined  himself  to  be  possessed, 
with  the  destruction  of  the  swine,  he  would  without  much 
difficulty  drive  them  off  the  precipice.  [Would  two  mad- 
men from  the  Insane  Hospital  drive  two  thousand  swine 
off  Central  Wharf  in  the  presence  of  "  their  keepers," 
''  without  much  difficulty  ?"  Were  swine  less  contrary  in 
Judea  than  in  Massachusetts  ?]  If  some  few  of  them  were 
put  in  motion,  the  whole  herd  would  follow.  Nor  is  it  un- 
likely that  the  other  person,  his  companion  in  affliction, 
joined  his  assistance  ;  for  St.  Matthew  speaks  of  two. 
They  invested  the  herd  [this  partakes  rather  of  an  Irish 
than  an  Oriental  idiom,]  on  each  side  and  thus  drove 
them  before  them."  Lardner's  Works,  vol.  i,  p.  474.  All 
this  is  rational,  very  rational.  No  one  more  highly  res- 
pects the  amiable  character  and  extensive  acquisitions  of 
Lardner,  than  the  writer.  But  I  must  protest  ao-ainst 
absurdity  of  explanation  even  though  offered  by  Lardner.* 
The  question  between  the  Orthodox  and  the  Rationalists 
is  not  wlietlier  these  persons  icere  diseased  1     It  is  admit- 

*  When  Peter  speaks  of"  the  angels  who  were  cast  down  to  hell," 
the  editors  of  the  Improved  Version  explain  the  assertion  in  a  note 
thus,  "  the  spies,  who  were  sent  to  explore  the  land  of  Canaan." 
Sir  William  Drummond  thinks  that  Moses  in  giving  an  account  of  the 
twelve  sons  of  Jacob  meant  to  describe  the  twelve  signs  of  the  Zodiac. 
Mr.  Mitford,  the  historian  of  Greece,  outstrips  Mr.  Belsham  even  in 
the  race  of  liberality.  He  not  only  rejects  "  the  introduction  of  the 
gospel  of  Matthew"  and  "  the  proem  of  John's  gospel,"  and  the  com- 
mon interpretaion  of  demoniacs,  for  all  which  the  English  Unitarian 
Reviewers  greatly  commend  him,  but  "he  justifies  Caiaphas,  in  pro- 
nouncing sentence  upon  Jesus,  absolves  Pontius  Pilate,  and  con- 
cludes that  the  sacrifice,  predestined  by  Almighty  Providence,  was 
accomplished — if  not  without  crime,  yet,  the  signal  treachery  of  one 
man  excepted,  without  any  that  we  seem  warranted  to  impute."  He 
also  justifies  the  Roman  government  for  persecuting  the  early  chris- 
tians. Pity  it  is  !  that  Mr.  Mitford  cannot  antedate  his  existence  by 
a  retro-metempsychosis  in  the  personage  of  Trajan.  He  could  easily 
answer  the  inquiries  of  a  too  tender-hearted  Pliny  in  one  sentence, 
"  Christianos  illos  jugulate."  Are  the  improved  editors,  or  Sir  W. 
Drummond,  or  Mr.  Mitford,  most  rational?  Will  it  be  beliave'd 
that  Mr.  Mitford  escapes  with  almost  no  Unitarian  censure  ?  That  he 
is  even  hailed  as  an  enlightened  advocate  of  Unitarianism  .' 


48 

ted  on  all  hands  that  they  were  afflicted  with  a  dreadful 
disease.  The  question  is,  what  was  the  nature  of  this 
disease  1  Was  it  a  physical  derangement  only,  or  the  result 
of  possession  hy  evil  spirits  ?  This  distinction  should  be 
kept  in  mind,  to  detect  the  fallacies  of  Lardner  and 
Farmer.  When  Jesus  says  of  the  woman,  who  had 
been  sick  eighteen  years,  "  Satan  bound  her,"  does  it 
follow  that  Satan  did  not  bind  her,  because  she  had  been 
sick  eighteen  years  1  Yet  this  is  the  species  of  logic 
adopted  by  those  celebrated  authors.  In  view  of  such 
scriptural  statements,  as  have  been  exhibited  under  this 
and  the  preceding  argument,  the  Rationalists,  to  produce 
conviction  in  reasoning  minds,  must  adduce  some  argu- 
ment more  weighty  than  ^  petitio  principii.  It  should  also 
be  remembered,  that  what  in  some  passages  is  attributed  to 
evil  spirits  in  general,  is,  in  other  places,  attributed  to  Sa- 
tan in  particular  ;  just  as  the  defeats  of  Burgoyne  and 
Cornwallis  were  the  defeats  of  King  George  ;  and  what 
was  done  by  those  Generals  was  done  by  their  Sovereign, 
according  to  the  received  maxim,  quod  facit  per  alium  facit 
per  se.  The  scriptures  represent  Satan  as  the  leader  of 
the  fallen  hosts.  These  things  kept  in  mind,  the  whole 
subject  will  be  plain» 


49  ((UNirEESITY 


/> 


LETTER   V. 


Rev.  and  Dear  Sir, 

A  fifth  argument  is,  Tliat  Christ  liims  elf  taught  concern^ 
ing  evil  spirits  a  continuity  of  agency  ,infiuencc  andconnex' 
ion,  intelligible  only  on  the  supposition  of  personal  existence. 

In  the  passage  from  the  eighth  chapter  of  John^  before 
quoted,  the  devil  is  called  by  Christ  "  a  murderer/'  lit- 
erally a  homicide,  or  in  still  plainer  English,  though  of 
precisely  the  same  import,  a  man-killer.  To  what  inci- 
dent recorded  in  scripture  can  this  refer,  except  to  that 
which  ''  brought  deatli  into  the  world  and  all  our  wo"  ? 
With  what  terrible  emphasis  of  truth  is  it  applicable 
here  ?  Is  it  necessary  to  quote  other  passages  of -scripture 
to  show  that  our  first  parents  were  teinpted  to  sin  by  the 
wiles  of  Sataa  J  But  having  tempted  men  to  transgres- 
sion, is  Satan  content  to  resign  ail  farther  inSaence  over 
them  ?  Luke,  xiii.  16.  "  Ouglit  not  this  woman,  being  a 
dauo-hter  of  Abraham,  whom  Satan  hath  bound,  lo,  these 
eighteen  years,  be  loosed  from  this  bond  on  the  Sabbath 
day?"  xxii.  31.  ''And  the  Lord  said,  Simon,  Simon, 
behold  Satan  hath  desired  to  have  you,  that  he  may  sift 
you  as  wheat."  Here  various,  ceaseless,  continued  ac- 
tivity is  ascribed  to  something,  which  looks  very  like  an 
agent ;  which,  if  it  have  not  a  personal  existence,  is  of  a 
unique,  indescribable,  inconceivable  character.  Was  it 
"  disease"  of  any  name  or  nature,  or  "  the  principle  of 
evil"  more  or  less  inveterate,  or  "  Sammael  the  angel  of 
death,"  in  the  popular  Jewish  mythology,  "  that  desired 
to  have  Peter,  to  sift  him  as  wheat"]  Matthew,  xxv. 
41,  "  Depart  from  me,  ye  cursed,  into  everlasting  fire 
prepared  for  the  devil  and  his  angels."  Here  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ  distinctly  asserts,  that,  at  the  judgment  day, 


50 

the  impenitent  shall  be  sentenced  to  an  everlasting  resi- 
dence with  something.  With  what  ?  With  *'  evil  princi- 
ple" or  "  disease"  in  the  abstract  ?  With  madness  ? 
With  epilepsy  ?  With  a  Jewish  mythus  ?  With  —  ? 
With  —  ?  or  "  with  the  devil  and  his  angels  V  Supply 
the  preceding  blanks  with  whatever  explanation  or  suppo- 
sition you  please,  fanciful  or  philosophical,  (which  is  only 
another  word  for  ultra-fanciful,)  learned  or  unlearned,  will 
it  meet  the  innumerable  and  pressing  difficulties  of  the 
case  ?  Will  ani/  supposition  meet  these,  except  that  of 
the  personal  existence  of  the  devil  and  his  angels  7  In 
stating  this  argument,  I  have  purposely  limited  it  to  the 
very  luords  of  Christ  ivhile  on  earth,  a  few  of  which  only 
have  been  quoted.  The  apostles  would  afford  abundant 
confirmation  of  it.  Considering  the  early  and  deadly  in- 
fluence of  Satan  over  Adam,  his  continued  agency  in 
afflicting  our  race,  his  seducements  in  leading  men  into 
sin,  and  the  destiny  that  Christ  declares  to  await  the 
finally  impenitent  in  connexion  with  fallen  angels,  we  are 
constrained  to  pronounce  "  the  Bible  one  of  the  most  de- 
ceptive books  ever  written"  if  "  Satan"  do  not  mean  an 
agent,  and  not  an  attribute  ;  a  person  and  not  a  quality. 
This  will  appear  still  plainer  when  we  consider, 

The  sixth  argument,  That  Christ  personally  taught  the 
existence  of  a  mighty  evil  spirit,  who  occnpics  a  usurped 
dominion  in  this  world. 

Proof  John,  xii.  31.  "Now  is  the  judgment  of  this 
world ;  now  shall  the  prince  of  this  world  be  cast  out." 
xvi.  11.  "Of  judgment,  because  the  prince  of  this  world 
is  judged."  xiv.  30.  "  Hereafter  I  will  not  talk  much 
with  you,  for  the  prince  of  this  world  cometh  and  hath 
nothing  in  me." 

What  possible  explanation  can  be  assigned  to  these 
passages,  consistent  with  a  denial  of  diabolical  agency  ? 
Can  believers  in  the  native  original  purity,  or,  what  may 


51 

more  properly  be  called,  the  moral  equipollence  of  our 
race,  suppose  "  the  principle  of  evil"  intended  here  ?  If 
so,  another  corner  stone  of  the  Unitarian  fabric,  if  not 
subverted,  receives  a  severe  shock.  Can  those,  who  sup- 
pose every  child  now  born  into  the  world,  as  free  from 
every  taint  and  predisposition  to  sin  as  Adam  fresh  from 
the  hand  of  his  Maker,  or  as  the  child  Jesus  when  "  the 
magi  fell  down  and  worshipped  him,"  believe  that  "  the 
evil  principle"  is  "  the  prince  of  this  world  V  Has  not 
Dr.  Ware  proved  to  the  satisfaction  of  Unitarians  that 
simplicity,  innocence,  virtue,  purity,  veracity,  honesty, 
love  of  kindred,  and  of  country,  philanthrophy,  &c.  are 
as  natural  as  the  opposite  qualities,  and  far  more  general  ? 
Not  only  are  two  truths  spoken  to  one  lie,  but  ten  debts 
are  paid  to  one  not  paid.  Is  not  man  holy  and  good,  or 
at  least  as  holy  and  good,  as  he  is  unholy  and  bad  1  "  Of 
a  mixed  character?"  The  good  preponderant?  Why 
then  should  "  the  principle  of  evil"  be  exalted  to  this  bad 
eminence, — have  this  monopoly  assigned  to  it,  while  the 
principle  of  goodness  is  forgotten  or  slighted  ?  Is  there 
not  something  rather  askew  here  ?  The  different  parts  of 
the  Unitarian  edifies  do  not  tally,  or  if  they  do,  they  re- 
quire a  joiner  of  greater  skill  than  has  yet  appeared  to 
put  them  together,  to  suit  the  tenons  to  the  mortises.  Is 
it  not  a  curious  fact  that  different  Unitarian  interpreta- 
tions of  the  words  devil,  Satan,  &c.  interpretations  of  the 
first  authority  and  most  general  prevalence,  applied  to 
different  passages  tend  at  one  time  strongly  to  one  point 
of  ''  hateful"  Calvinism,  irresistible  grace,  and  at  another 
time,  to  another  equally  hated  doctrine  of  the  same 
"  gloomy  system,"  original  entire  chpravit)/  ?  Whence  is 
this  ?  Is  this  tendency  of  the  Unitarian  mode  of  interpre- 
tation stated  unfairly  ?  Is  not  the  expression  "  tend 
strongly,"  rather  below  than  above  the  truth  ? 

But  suppose  we  adopt  either  of  the  other  liberal  expla- 


52 

nations.     Is  "  disease"    so   much   more   prevalent   than 
health,  that  it  deserves  to  be  called   "  the  prince  of  this 
world"  ?    "  Would  you  go  to  a  hospital  to  learn  the  health 
of  the  community?"     Had  Christ  dealt  in  Grecian,  rather 
than  in  Jewish  mythology,  would  not  his  cheerful  and 
complacent  spirit  have  exalted  Hygeia  to  this  eminence  ? 
Instead  of  this,   can  the  really  enlightened  Unitarian  be- 
lieve that  he  would  have  given  the  sceptre  to  Sammael  or 
Pluto,  the  grim  king  of  death  ?    Are  such   conceptions 
consistent  with  his  notions  of  the  character  of  the  messen- 
ger of  glad  tidings  ?    Either  of  the  three  hypotheses  is 
hemmed  in  with    insuperable  difficulties.     The   attempt 
to  stand  stock  still  and   say  nothing,  is  the  only  tenable 
(because  unassailable)  position  the  Unitarian  can  take. 
This,  however,  hardly  falls  in  with  the  assumed  character 
of  those  who  are  leading  the  age  in  "  the  march  of  mind," 
looks  had,  and  is  scarcely  compatible  with  the  genius  loci 
of  Boston,  which  has  ever  been  reputed  alike  inquisitive, 
intelligent  and  communicative.     These  pioneers  through 
the    great   wilderness   of  theological    science   must    feel 
themselves  the  forlorn  hope  of  human  illumination.     Is 
any  Unitarian  satisfied  that  in  the  passages  quoted  ''  the 
prince  of  this  world"  means  "  the  principle  of  evil,"  or 
"  disease,"   or  any  merely  popular   Jewish  mythological 
fancy  about  the  angel  of  death  ?    It  is  readily  conceded 
that  Sammael,  like  Belial  or  Apollyon,  might  be  another 
popular  name  for  Satan.     But  to  call  this  a  mere  mythus, 
would  be  simply  an  assumption  of  the  zvhole  subject  in 
debate.     In  what  sense   was  disease  ''judged"  or  ''cast 
out"    by   the  death  of  Christ?    Was  it   "the   principle 
of  evil"    that    "  came"    to    Christ,    "  having    nothing  in 
him,"  and  yet  so  afflicted  him   as  to  prevent  Christ  from 
"  talking  much  with  his  disciples"  ?    If  this  was  the  sea- 
son when  "  the  powers  of  darkness"    assailed  Christ,  as 
has  been  already  shown,  all  this  is  plain  and  intelligible. 


But  ichat  can  the  proof  texts  quoted  under  this  argument 
mean,  on  any  Unitarian  hi/pothesis  ever  yet  proposed  ? 

My  seventh  argument  is,     That  Christ  taught  the  same 
doctrine  after  his  ascension  to  heaven. 

Proof.  Acts,  xxvi.  16 — IS.  ''  I  have  appeared  unto 
thee  (Paul)  for  this  purpose,  to  make  thee  a  minister  and 
a  witness  both  of  these  things,  which  thou  hast  seen,  and 
of  those  things  in  the  which  I  will  appear  unto  thee  ;  de- 
livering thee  from  the  people,  and  from  the  Gentiles,  unto 
whom  now  I  send  thee,  to  open  their  eyes,  and  to  turn 
them  from  darkness  to  light,  and  from  the  potver  of  Satan 
unto  God."  This  passage,  by  itself,  affords  the  same  evi- 
dence of  the  existence  of  Satan  as  a  personal  agent,  that 
it  affords  of  the  existence  of  God,  as  a  personal  agent. 
Any  interpretation  that  would  turn  the  word  "  Satan," 
into  the  abstract  principle  of  evil,  would  turn  the  word 
"  God,"  into  the  abstract  principle  of  goodness.  This 
would  drive  us  to  the  incomprehensible  pantheism,  under 
the  less  intelligible  name,  transcendental  idealism,  of 
Fichte.  In  this  passage,  darkness  and  light  are  abstracts 
and  opposites ;  Satan  and  God  are  concretes  and  opposites. 
I  ask  the  writer  of  the  article  quoted  from  the  Register, 
I  ask  the  theological  students  and  professors  at  Cam- 
bridge, I  ask  you,  my  dear  sir,  and  the  Unitarian  clergy 
of  Boston  and  New  England,  I  ask  all  Unitarians  of  this 
land  and  of  every  land,  did  Christ,  in  commissioning  the 
great  apostle  of  the  gentiles,  confirm^  from  the  throne  of 
his  glory,  an  oriental  fction  ? 

In  order  to  give  no  offence  to  the  most  fastidious 
critic,  the  quotations  on  which  the  principal  reliance  has 
thus  far  been  placed,  have  been  taken,  almost  exclusively, 
from  the  evangelists  :  still  more — from  the  apostolical  gos- 
pels of  Matthew  and  John  :  still  more — from  those  parts 
of  their  gospels,  which  Unitarians  allow  to  have  been 
written  by  these  apostles.  There  is  no  dispute  as  to 
5 


54 

the  genuineness  of  the  readings.  What  still  adds  weight 
to  this  selection  is,  that  these  quotations  are,  for  tlie  most 
part,  in  the  very  words  of  Christ  himself. 

The  prejudices  of  those,  whose  professed  reverence  for 
the  instructions  and    doctrines  of    Christ    himself  is  so 
great,  that  they  reject  a  quotation  from  Paul  or  Peter  as  of 
quite  inferior  authority,  have   thus  far  been  consulted   in 
their  fullest  extent.    A  fter  this  accommodation  of  ourselves 
to  the  views  of   Unitarians,   it   is    but   fair,  in  adducing 
further  arguments,  to  take  the  liberty  which  the  views  of 
the  Orthodox  on  this  subject  permit.     Believing  the  epistles 
to  be  of  equal  authority  with  the  gospels,    and   a   more 
systematical  revelation  and  fuller  defence  of  the  Christian 
system,    the    Orthodox    receive    whatever    they    contain, 
supplemental   or   explanatory   of  this    system,  as  spring- 
ing from    the    same   authoritative  origin,   the  inspiration 
of  the  Spirit  of  Truth.      They  believe  the  apostle  Paul 
to  have   spoken   the    truth,   when   he    said  to    the    Gala- 
tian  churches,  "  I  certify   you,  brethren,  that  the  gospel 
which  was  preached  of  me,  is  not  after  man  ;  for  I  neither 
received  it  of  man,   neither  was  .1  taught  it,  hut   by  the 
revelation   of  Jesus     Christ''       They    believe,    that   the 
epistles  of  Paul  contain  the  instructions  and  doctrines  of 
Christ  as  really  as  though  they  heard  them  from  his  own 
lips.     What   the  apostles   believed   and  taught,  who  did 
not  write  gospels,   but  wrote  epistles  to   individuals,  to 
particular  churches,  or  to  the  church  at  large,  they  think 
deserves  the  same  attentive  deference,  that  is  paid  to  the 
four  evangelists  ;   especially,  believing  as  they  do,  that   it 
was  not  the  unassisted  apostles  who  spoke  and  wrote,  but 
the  Spirit  of  their  Father,  who  communicated  divine  truth 
through  them.      If  this  be  a  prejudice,  yet,  having  the 
sanctity  of  age  and  the  authority  of  the  church  universal 
in  all  ages,  the  writer  must  be  excused,  if,  without  further 
deference  to  the  critical  skill  of  Dr.  Priestley,  who  thinks 


the  apostles,  especially  Paul,  reasoned  inconclusively,  or 
to  the  conscientious  freedom  of  Mr.  Belshain,  who  does 
not  hold  himself  bound  to  believe  because  they  believed, 
he  is  unwilling  to  forego  so  early,  so  deep-seated  and 
wide-spread  a  prejudice,  but  chooses  to  summon  these 
witnesses  to  give  their  testimony  on  the  subject  under 
consideration.  Whether  inspired  or  not,  all  will  allow 
that  the  apostles  were  quite  as  likely  to  understand  the 
truths  they  were  to  teach;  and  which  they  actually  did 
teach  through  a  series  of  years,  as  any  Socinian  writers, 
from  the  Fratres  Poloni  to  the  Editors  of  the  Improved 
Version.  Whether  we  can  understand  what  they  taught, 
we  shall  soon  have  occasion  to  decide.  If  our  belief 
must  rest  on  the  dictum  of  any  man,  the  writer  is  willing 
to  express  the  strong  prepossession,  reasonable  or  wirea- 
sonahle,  that  one  distinct  declaration  of  Paul,  would 
out  weigh  the  most  elaborate  criticism  of  Cappe  ;  and  that 
ten  verses  from  Jude,  would  overturn  ten  chapters  from 
Lindsey,  or  even  from  the  estimable  and  intelligent  Lard- 
ner.  In  other  words,  if  I  could  ascertain  the  opinion  of 
an  apostle,  who  listened  to  the  instructions,  which  fell 
from  the  lips  of  Jesus  while  on  earth,  or  received  his  in- 
structions from  him  after  his  ascension  to  glory,  that 
opinion  in  regard  to  the  spiritual,  eternal  loorld,  I  icoidd 
prefer  to  all  the  specidations  of  all  the  schools.  If  in 
this  opinion,  all  the  apostles  coincided,  I  should  consider 
it  just  as  credible  and  as  certain,  as  though  the  voice  of 
the  Eternal  were  to  proclaim  its  truth  from  the  whirlwind 
or  the  lightning.  No  black  cloud  over  the  face  of  day, 
no  tempest  of  fire  and  smoke,  no  thundering  in  the  heav- 
ens above,  nor  shaking  of  the  earth  beneath,  could  add  to 
the  certainty  of  the  truth,  however  they  might  to  the 
vividness  of  the  impression.  If  individual  and,  still  more, 
united  apostolical  opinion,  in  reference  to  the  spiritual 
world,  is  not  of  unquestionable  authority y  not  only  must 


56 

the  epistles  be  given  up,  but  the  gospels  also,  and  all 
revelation,  and  the  possihility  of  revelation.  In  this  case, 
I  must  become  an  absolute  skeptic,  "  I  must  doubt  of  every 
thing  ;  yes,  of  these  doubts  themselves."  I  am  thrown  into 
a  state  of  more  perplexing  doubt  than  Socrates  himself.  I 
cannot  even  liojjc  that  a  divine  teacher  shall  ever  come. 
What  that  class  of  Unitarians  expect  to  gain,  who,  while 
they  profess  most  sincerely  to  believe  in  Christianity  as  a 
revealed  system  of  divine  truth,  give  but  a  partial,  forced, 
unwilling  acceptance  to  the  epistles,  is  more  than  any  of 
them  have  yet  distinctly  informed  us. — It  would  seem, 
from  a  recent  article  in  the  Christian  Examiner,  that 
American  Unitarianisrn  is  about  to  undergo  an  unwonted 
and  unexpected  transformation.'*'  Paul  is  apparently 
about  to  become  a  favorite,  at  least  till  the  epistle  to 
the  Hebrews  is  uncanoncd.  Whether  he  will  retain  his 
hold  on  Unitarian  affections  after  that,  considering  his 
"inconclusive  reasoning"  and  the  things  in  him  "hard 
to  be  understood,  which  the  unlearned  and  unstable  wrest 
to  their  own  destruction,  as  they  do  also  the  other  scrip- 
tures,^' can  scarcely  be  thought  problematical.  I  beg  the 
writer  of  the  article  just  alluded  to,  seriously  to  consider 
the  quotations,  which  will  shortly  be  made  from  Paul,  from 
the  unquestioned  writings  of  the  great  apostle  of  the 
Gentiles.  Paul  is  not  an  allegorist.  He  does  not  indulge  in 
"allegorical,"  "mystical,"  or  "merely  imaginary  senses" 
of  quotations  from  the  Old  Testament,  or  of  arguments 
addressed  to  Roman,  Corinthian,  or  Ephesian  Christians. 
"  We  must  recollect  that  the  words  of  Christ  were  report- 
ed from  memory  by  the  evangelists,  and  not  always  with 
perfect  accuracy."  "  The  evangelists,  differing  as  they 
do  occasionally  as  to  the  sense  and  bearing  of  these 
words,"  and  "  being  all  allegorists,"  "  it  would  not  have 
been  strange,  if  unconsciously  and  through  inadvertence 
*  See  note  D. 


57 

they  had  given  an  allegorical  turn,  by  a  slight  change  of 
expression,  to  words,  which  were  used  by  our  Saviour 
himself  only  by  way  of  application."  Perhaps  Matthew 
and  John,  with  the  very  best  intentions,  were  not,  after  all, 
faithful  reporters  of  uhat  Christ  said  in  regard  to  the 
existence  and  agency  of  Satan.  The  medium  of  commu- 
nication may  have  tinged  the  instructions  of  Christ  with 
a  superadded  allegorical  sense,  which  they  did  not  possess 
when  first  uttered.  But  this  cannot  be  said  of  Paul.  He 
is  plain  and  explicit,  indulging  in  no  allegorical,  rejecting 
all  mystical,  imaginary  interpretations  and  applications. 
He  never  allows  himself  in  liberal  *'  accommodation"  to 
suit  his  doctrine  to  his  hearers.  If  he  at  times  reasons 
ad  liominem,  the  context  and  occasion  plainly  point  this 
out.  Let  it  be  remembered  that  this  is  the  '"  latest 
fashion  "  of  Unitarian  belief. 

Wlien  Paul  and  the  other  apostles  icere  sent  forth  to 
*'  turn  raenfrom  darhicss  to  light,  and  from  the  poicer  of 
Satan  unto  God,''  what  did  they  understand  their  commis- 
sion to  mean  ? 

Omitting  the  Acts  and  the  Apocalypse,  we  will  limit  our 
quotations  to  the  epistles,  and  here  too  we  can  only  make 
a  selection,  omitting  many  passages  equally  as  pertinent 
and  strong  as  those  to  be  quoted. 

Romans,  xvi.  20.  "  The  God  of  peace  shall  bruise  Sa- 
tan under  your  feet  shortly."  1  Cor.  v.  5.  "  I  have  judg- 
ed   to  deliver  such  an  one  unto  Satan  for  the  destruc- 
tion of  the  flesh,  that  the  spirit  may  be  saved  in  the  day  of 
the  Lord  Jesus."  vii.  5.  "  Com.e  together  again,  that 
Satan  tempt  you  not  for  your  incontinency."  2  Cor.  ii. 
IL  *'  Lest  Satan  should  get  an  advantage  of  us,  for  we 
are  not  ignorant  of  his  devices."  What  does  the  word 
"  Satan"  in  these  passages  mean  ?  "  Principle  of  evil  ?" 
"  Disease?"  "  Mythus  ?"  A  leading  Unitarian  writer,  of 
great  learning  and  ability,  has  recently  told  us,  that  *'  ac- 
5* 


58 

cording  to  a  Jewish  conception,  Sammoel,  the  angel  of 
death,  was  identified  with  Satan."  Satan,  if  I  understand 
the  writer,  was  only  another  name  in  the  popular  Jewish 
mythology,  for  the  angel  of  death.  But  then  there  was  in 
reality  no  such  being  as  the  angel  of  death.  The  word 
was  used  in  "  a  merely  imaginary  sense."  I  ask  that  wri- 
ter to  examine  his  assertion,  these  remarks  and  the  above 
passages,  and,  in  view  of  the  whole,  to  decide  what  the 
word  "  Satan,"  used  hy  Paul,  means.  What  in  a  special 
manner  does  it  mean  in  these  passages  ?  2  Cor.  xii.  7. 
"  Lest  I  should  be  exalted  above  measure  through  the 
abundance  of  the  revelations,  there  was  given  to  me  a 
thorn  in  the  flesh,  the  messenger  of  Satan,  to  buffet  me." 
Did  Christ  strengthen  ''  the  principle  of  evil"  in  the 
chiefest  apostle  1 

1  Thess.  ii.  18.  "  Wherefore  we  would  have  come  un- 
to you,  even  I  Paul,  once  and  again,  but  Satan  hindered 
us."  TVas  Paul  hindered  from  visiting  the  Thessalonian 
Christians  hy  the  Jewish  conception  about  the  imaginary 
angel  of  death  ?  or  if  it  mean  that  he  was  hindered  by  sick- 
ness, how  will  that  explanation  suit  1  Tim.  v.  14,  15? 
"  Give  none  occasion  to  the  adversary  to  .speak  reproach- 
fully; for  some  are  already  turned  aside  after  Satan."  Is  it 
any  occasion  of  speaking  reproachfully  of  Christians,  that 
they  "  suffer  those  ills  which  flesh  is  heir  to  "?  Did  not  the 
importance  of  the  subject  and  the  strength  of  opposing 
prejudices  demand  that  varied  and  multiplied  illustrations 
should  be  given,  and  the  fallacy  and  absurdity  of  the 
Unitarian  theories  be  shown,  I  should  fear  exhausting  the 
patience  of  the  reader  by  any  further  quotations,  after  so 
full  and  so  unequivocal  an  exhibition  of  this  apostle's 
meaning.  But  as  Paul  is  just  now  likely  to  be  listened  to 
with  special  deference,  it  may  be  well  to  give  him  a 
still  farther  hearing. 


59 

2  Cor.  iv.  3,  4.  "  If  our  Gospel  be  hid,  it  is  hid  to 
them  that  are  lost,  in  wliom  the  god  of  this  world  hath 
blinded  the  minds  of  them  that  believe  not,  lest  the  light 
of  the  glorious  gospel  of  Christ,  who  is  the  image  of  God, 
should  shine  unto  them." 

Do  you  doubt  who  "  the  God  of  this  world"  is?  See 
Eph.  ii.  1,  2.  "And  you  hath  he  quickened,  who  were 
dead  in  trespasses  and  sins  ;  wherein  in  time  past  ye  walk- 
ed according  to  the  course  of  this  world,  according  to  the 
prince  of  the  power  of  the  air,  the  spirit  that  now  worketh 
in  the  children  of  disobedience."  The  phrase,  "  the 
prince  of  the  power  of  the  air,"  according  to  the  well 
known  idiom  of  the  New  Testament,  evidently  means  the 
powerful  invisible  prince,  which  the  synonymous  parallel- 
ism, "  the  spirit  that  now  worketh  in  the  children  of  diso- 
bedience," still  farther  explains  and  limits.  All  this  ex- 
actly coincides  with  the  declarations  of  Christ  before  quo- 
ted, that  the  prince  of  this  world  is  judged,  is  cast  out,  &/C. 

One  passage  more  from  Paul,  and  only  one.  Eph.  vi. 
10 — 12.  "  Finally,  my  brethren,  be  strong  in  the  Lord 
and  in  the  power  of  his  might.  Put  on  the  whole  armour 
of  God,  that  ye  may  be  able  to  stand  against  the  wiles 
of  the  devil.  For  we  wrestle  not  against  flesh  and  blood, 
but  against  principalities,  against  powers,  against  the 
rulers  of  the  darkness  of  this  world,  against  spiritual 
wickedness  in  high  places."  See  the  whole  of  this  most 
striking  passage.  It  is  so  full  a  representation  of  our  in- 
visible spiritual  enemies,  and  of  the  mode  of  meeting  and 
vanquishing  them,  that  those,  who  may  be  in  doubt  as  to 
the  truth  on  this  subject,  and  yet  willing  to  believe  what 
the  word  of  God  declares,  are  earnestly  requested  to  read 
it,  study  it,  meditate  upon  it,  compare  it  with  the  pre- 
ceding declarations  of  Christ,  and  of  this  apostle,  and 
see  if  it  must  not  refer  to  actual  spiritual  existences, 
and   not  to   abstract  impersonalities.      Compare  it   with 


60 

Col.  i.  13,  and  ii.  15.  See  how  by  the  cross,  i.  e.  his 
death,  Christ  triumphed  over  his  enemies  and  the  ene- 
mies of  the  human  family,  spoiling  principalities  and 
powers,  delivering  true  Christians  from  the  power  of  dark- 
ness. Let  every  one  examine  this  subject  without  preju- 
dice, dispassionately,  ready  to  give  up  preconceived  opin- 
ions, if  unsound,  and  say,  will  any  Unitarian  theory  meet 
the  apparent  intensity  of  apostolic  meaning  ? 

In  reference  to  the  quotation  from  Eph.  vi.  10 — 12, 
the  following  remarks  by  Storr  deserve  special  attention. 
"  St.  Paul,  who  had  dared  to  overturn  the  magical  system 
of  the  Ephesians,  regarded  the  doctrine  of  evil  spirits  as 
not  at  all  inconsistent  with  the  dignity  of  that  very  Chris- 
tianity, which  had  discarded  superstition.  And  he  did 
not  hesitate  to  interweave  this  doctrine  with  his  epistle  to 
the  Ephesians  themselves,  although  in  this  same  epistle 
he  inveighs  against  the  superstition  of  the  Essenes,  with 
which  the  Ephesians  were  in  danger  of  being  tinctured. 
Had  not  Paul  believed  the  doctrine  of  wicked  angels,  the 
epistle  to  the  Ephesians  would  surely  have  been  the  last 
place  in  which  he  would  have  spoken  so  impressively  and 
circumstantially  concerning  their  temptations,  as  he  in 
this  very  epistle  was  contending  against  the  Essenes,  who 
had  manifested  a  veneration  for  good  angels  and  a  terror 
of  wicked  ones  altogether  extreme." 

On  3ny  Unitarian  hypothesis,  which  has  yet  been  ad- 
vanced, darkness,  thick  darkness,  and  only  thick  darkness 
rests  upon  this  subject.  The  plainest  language  must  be 
wrested  and  "  turned  aside  from  its  obvious  meaning,*' 
or  the  defenders  of  that  system  would,  long  since, 
have  either,  quoad  hoc,  embraced  Orthodoxy,  or  renounced 
revelation.  This  is  strong  language,  but  see,  in  confirma- 
tion and  illustration  of  the  remark,  another  passage  from  a 
plain,  literal,  im-figurative  apostle.  James,  ii.  19.  "  Thou 
believest  there  is  one  God  ;  thou  doest  well.     The  devils 


61 

also  believe  and  tremble."  What  was  the  object  of 
James  in  his  epistle,  especially  in  this  assertion  ?  Was 
it  not  to  show  that/«/M  alone  in  accountable  beings,  i.  e. 
mei-e  belief  without  right  affections  and  actions,  could  not 
justify  ?  In  the  passage  just  quoted,  he  allows  that  belief 
in  the  existence  of  God  is  "  well "  enough  in  itself,  but 
this  alone  can  never  justify  and  save.  How  does  he  prove 
this  ?  Thus.  Even  the  devils  believe  and,  what  is  more, 
tremble,  and  thereby  show  the  sincerity  of  their  belief. 
What,  to  Unitarian  conception,  can  this  mean  ?  Does  a 
mythus  or  madness  believe  and  tremble  ?  Does  "  the  evil 
principle"  believe  and  tremble  ?  Of  rational  accountable 
beings,  this  may  be  said,  but  of  what  else  can  it  be  ? 
Either  of  the  liberal  explanations  applied  to  the  word 
"  devils,"  in  this  connexion,  makes  the  apostle's  reason- 
ing, instead  of  an  argument,  a  mass  of  unintelligible 
nonsense.  If  language  can  express  the  conception,  is 
not  actual  personal  existence  attributed  to  evil  spirits 
here  ? 

In  an  unornamented  argumentative  discussion,  can 
"  belief  and  trembling"  be  predicated  of  disease  or  of  the 
abstract  principle  of  evil  under  the  personal  name  of 
*'  devils,"  while  the  only  pertinent  use  of  the  ivord,  while 
the  lohole  drift  of  the  argument,  requires  that  it  be  taken 
in  its  personal  sense  1  In  the  compass  of  language,  in- 
spired or  uninspired,  oriental  or  ofccidental,  prosaic  or 
poetical,  can  there  be  found  a  catachresis  so  harsh  and 
craggy,  as  Unitarian  interpreters  would  here  thrust  upon 
one  of  the  simplest  and  most  matter-of-fact  writers  in  the 
New  Testament  ?  The  expression  itself,  the  context,  the 
object  of  the  writer,  the  general  character  of  the  epistle 
and  of  the  apostle,  are  all  for  a  simple  natural  meaning, 
which  a  child  could  not  help  understanding  right;  yet  an 
unwillingness  to  believe  an  unpalatable  fact,  together  with 
the  prejudice  of  system,  introduce  and  defend  a  figure 


62 

that,  at  once,  bids  defiance  to  all  laws  of  language  and 
rules  of  logic.  If  such  be  "rational"  interpretation,  what 
is  irrational  1  Let  him,  w^ho  believes  the  Bible  to  contain 
a  revelation  from  heaven,  and  the  epistle  of  James  to  be  a 
part  of  that  revelation,  read  the  passage  already  quoted 
from  that  epistle,  read  it  in  its  connexion,  and  then,  in 
the  presence  of  his  maker  and  his  judge,  lay  his  hand 
upon  his  breast  and  say  whether  the  passage  does  not 
seem  to  him  to  teach  the  actual  existence  of  evil  spirits, 
of  "  devils  that  believe  and  tremble."  Is  it  irrational  to 
interpret  scripture,  not  only  according  to  its  literal  and  ob- 
vious meaning,  but  according  to  its  only  consisteiit  meaning  ? 

The  opinion  of  the  apostle  John,  on  this  subject,  has 
been  already  exhibited  from  his  gospel.  His  first  epistle 
abundantly  confirms  that  opinion,  as  may  be  seen  by 
quotations  in  note  C. 

In  order  to  elicit  the  opinions  of  Peter  and  Jude,  the 
second  chapter  of  the  second  epistle  of  the  former,  may 
be  compared  with  the  epistle  of  the  latter.  These  two 
passages  are  very  similar,  and  designed  to  teach  the  same 
lesson.  Let  us  examine  them  with  some  particularity. 
They  both  assert  the  fact  that  as  there  had  been  false 
prophets  among  the  Israelites  of  old,  so  "  false  teachers," 
had  already,  even  in  the  apostolic  age,  "  crept  in  una- 
wares" to  the  Christian  church,  *'  privily  bringing  in  dam- 
nable heresies,  even  denying  the  Lord  that  bought  them." 
It  would  be  foreign  to  our  purpose  to  inquire  who  these 
teachers  were.  The  assertion  "  that  they  denied  the 
Lord  that  bought  them,"  sufficiently  indicates  the  cast 
and  stamp  of  their  theology.  The  apostles,  seeing  the 
danger  to  which  the  Christian  church  was  thus  early  ex- 
posed, "  gave  all  diligence  in  writing  to  those  sanctified 
by  God,  the  Father,  and  preserved  in  Jesus  Christ,"  "  ex- 
horting them  to  contend  earnestly  for  the  faith  once  de- 
livered  to  the   saints."      They  assure  them  at  the  same 


63 

time,  that,  though  "  many  should  follow  the  pernicious 
ways  of  these  false  teachers,  so  that  the  way  of  truth 
should  be  evil  spoken  of,  yet  their  judgment  lingered 
not,  and  their  damnation  did  not  slumber."  In  this  case, 
both  the  teachers  and  the  taught,  **  following  pernicious 
ways,"  the  apostles  most  plainly  declare  should  speedily 
be  involved  in  one  common  ruin,  "  bringing  upon  them- 
selves swift  destruction."  Peter,  well  acquainted  with 
the  human  heart  and  its  readiness  to  deny  or  doubt  the 
plainest  and  most  unequivocal  assertions  of  divine  ven- 
geance, immediately  adduces  other  recorded  examples 
of  the  terrible  wrath  of  Almighty  God  against  sinners, 
to  show  the  certainty  of  the  threatened  punishment  against 
these  false  teachers.  "  For  if  God  spared  not  the  angels 
that  sinned,  but  cast  them  down  to  hell,  and  delivered 
them  into  chains  of  darkness,  to  be  reserved  unto  judg- 
ment ;  and  spared  not  the  old  world,  but  saved  Noah,  the 
eighth  person,  a  preacher  of  righteousness  bringing  in  the 
flood  upon  the  world  of  the  ungodly  ;  and  turning  the 
cities  of  Sodom  and  Gomorrah  into  ashes,  condemned 
them  with  an  overthrow,  making  them  an  ensample  unto 
those  that  after  should  live  ungodly  ;  delivered  just  Lot, 

vexed  with  the  filthy   conversation   of  the    wicked the 

Lord  knoweth  how  to  deliver  the  godly  out  of  temptation, 
and  to  reserve  the  unjust  unto  the  day  of  judgment  'to  be 
punished."  How  much  of  this  is  literal  ?  Was  a  whole 
*'  world  of  the  ungodly  "  destroyed  by  a  flood,  or  a  figure? 
Was  Noah  saved  literally  or  figuratively  ?  Were  those 
that  "  dv.-elt  in  the  cities  of  Sodom  and  Gomorrah  burnt 
to  ashes,"  and  thus  made  "  an  ensample  to  those  that 
should  live  ungodly,"  by  figure  or  in  fact  ?  Was  there 
such  a  man  as  Lot,  whom  God  delivered  from  this  confla- 
gration ?  Or  is  this  a  personification  ?  Were  "  the  an- 
gels that  sinned,"  real  angels,  who  transgressed  the  divine 
laws,  or  the  evil  principle,  or  a  mythus,  or  disease  ?    Were 


64 

these  angels,  or  this  principle,  disease,  or  mythus,  "  cast 
down  to  hell,  and  there  delivered  into  chains  of  darkness 
to  be  reserved  unto  jadgment  "  ?  What  principle  of  inter- 
pretation, sanctioned  by  usage,  common  sense  or  consis- 
tency, could  thus  jump  at  once  from  the  simple,  self-evi- 
dent meaning  of  language,  to  so  harsh,  crabbed,  unmean- 
ing and  incredible  an  explanation  as  the  self-styled  rational 
theory  forces  upon  this  passage  1  Does  not  the  expression 
"  angels  that  sinned,"  in  this  connexion  presuppose 
their  existence  in  a  sinless  state  ?  When  was  "  the  prin- 
ciple of  evil "  in  this  sinless  state  ?  How  did  "  the  prin- 
ciple of  evil"  sin?  Can  any  thing  but  voluntary  agents 
be  said  to  sin  ?  Is  the  principle  of  evil  a  voluntary 
agent  1  Or  rather  a  multitude  of  such  agents,  "  angels 
that  sinned  "?  According  to  Jude,  these  angels  "  kept 
not  their  first  estate."  What  was  the  first  estate  of  the 
principle  of  evil  ?  They  left  their  own  habitation.  What 
was  the  original  habitation  of  this  principle  1  Innumera- 
ble questions  like  these  might  be  asked  on  the  different 
passages,  which  relate  to  this  subject,  that  will  admit  of  no 
conceivable  answer,  consistent  with  the  Unitarian  hypothe- 
sis ;  no  answer,  which  would  not  carry  absurdity  on  the 
face  of  it.  Even  a  "  rational  "  believer  would  hardly 
venture  to  predicate  sin  of  disease,  or  of  a  mythological 
Jewish  fancy.  This  would  startle  Dathe,  who  thinks 
Satan,  in  the  book  of  Job,  a  good  angel,  though  rather  a 
rigid  censor  of  morals  ;  or  even  Brennecke,  who  believed 
that  Christ  remained  twenty-seven  years  on  earth  after 
his  resurrection.* 

*  See  Note  E.  I  regret  to  notice  that  Mr.  Noyes,  in  his  spirited, 
faithful  and  elegant  translation  of  the  Book  of  Job,  rather  counte- 
nances this  absurd  dream  of  Eichhorn,  Dathe,  &c.  To  mention  such 
aa  hypothesis  is  to  refute  it. 


G5 


LETTER  VI. 

Rev.  and  Dear  Sir, 

The  sum  of  the  argument  is  this.  Christ  himself 
was  tempted  and  put  to  exquisite  suffering  by  Satan.  He 
also  repeatedly,  and  explicitly  taught  the  doctrine  of 
personal  diabolical  existence.  He  taught  this  to  the  Jews 
as  a  people,  to  the  Pharisees  as  a  sect,  and  to  his  own 
disciples  in  private.  Christ  possessed  and  exerted  the 
power  of  expelling  devils  from  individuals  tormented  by 
them.  This  power  he  imparted  to  the  twelve  apostles  and 
seventy  disciples,  which  they  also  frequently  exercised. 
Christ  taught,  concerning  evil  spirits,  a  continuity  of 
agency,  influence,  and  connexion,  intelligible  only  on  the 
supposition  of  personal  existence.  Christ  distinctly 
represents  a  mighty  evil  spirit  as  occupying  a  usurped 
dominion  in  this  world.  After  his  ascension  to  heaven 
he  confirmed  the  same  truth.  The  apostles  Matthew, 
John,  Paul,  James,  Peter,  and  Jude,  together  with  the 
disciples  iMark  and  Luke,  understood  their  commission  to 
mean  that  men  were  literally  to  be  turned  "  from  the 
power  of  Satan  unto  God." 

Hitherto  the  argument  has  been  shnpli/  scriptural.  The 
principles  of  interpretation  applied,  have  been  those  of 
common  sense ;  just  those  principles  which  are  in  daily  use 
when  we  decide  on  the  meaning  of  language.  Before 
closing  the  argument,  I  wish  to  present  to  the  truly  philo- 
sophical inquirer  one  train  of  thought,  differing  in  a 
degree  from  those  already  suggested,  though  it  has  been 
hinted  at,  and  would  be  perceived  by  a  reader  of  the  class 
now  particularly  addressed. 

What  is  the  evidence  on  which  the  Copernican   the- 
ory rests,    and   by   which    it  has  supplanted   all   others  ? 
Simply  this,  all  knoicn  facts  tally  exactly   with  this  the- 
6 


66 

ory.  No  one  hypothesis,  from  Ptolemy  to  Des  Cartes, 
will  meet  and  explain  all  known  astronomical  facts, 
except  the  theory  of  Copernicus,  as  proved  by  Newton, 
and  illustrated  by  La  Place.  His  theory  is  verified, 
because  it  meets  and  explains  all  the  facts  of  the  case  ; 
while  the  other  theories  are  proved  to  be  false,  be- 
cause neither  of  them  will  do  this.  Let  us  apply  these 
principles  of  the  inductive  philosophy,  to  the  subject  under 
consideration.  We  must  bear  in  mind  that  the  Bible 
is  to  the  truly  religious  philosopher,  what  the  external  uni- 
verse is  to  the  natural  philosopher,  a  great  store-house  of 
facts.  The  Orthodox  theory  of  a  personal  meaning  at- 
tached to  the  words  **  devil  and  his  angels,"  meets  and  ex- 
plains all  the  passages  in  which  these  and  similar  terms 
are  employed  ;  i.  e.  exactly  tallies  with  all  the  facts  re- 
vealed on  this  subject.  No  other  theory,  nor  combination 
of  theories,  will  thus  meet  and  harmonize  these  facts. 
No  theory  has  been  advanced,  or  (I  will  venture  to  add) 
can  be  advanced,  that  shall,  at  the  same  time,  deny  a 
personal  meaning  to  those  personal  words,  and  afford  a 
consistent  meaning  in  its  stead.  Which  theory  ought,  then 
to  be  called  (I  do  not  now  say  scriptural  merely ,  but)  Ba^ 
conian,  philosophical,  rational  1  All  know  which  assumes 
to  itself  the  latter  title.  But  which  is  and  ought  to  be  con 
sidered  the  truly  rational  theory ^  that  which  meets  and  ex 
plains  all  the  facts,  or  that  which  in  one  point  or  another 
is  constantly  running  into  some  egregious,  palpable  absur 
dity  ?  Is  the  Copernican  or  the  Ptolemaic,  the  Orthodox 
or  the  Unitarian  theory,  the  true  one?  I  invite  the  dis- 
criminating, the  cultivated,  the  truly  philosophical  minds 
among  the  Unitarians,  to  examine  this  argument,  to  sub- 
ject it  to  the  most  rigid  scrutiny. 

Will  any  one,  as  a  dernier  resort,  deny  that  the  Orthodox 
theory  docs  thus  tally  with  the  facts  ?  Then  let  me  ask.  Is 
there  one  liberal  theory,  which  tallies   with  them  1   With 


67 

which  of  the  theories  do  most  of  the  facts  readily  harmo- 
nize ?  Apply  any  one  Unitarian  theory,  or  tlic  w/iolc  oflhcrn, 
and  the  one  universally  received  theory  of  the  Orthodox, 
and  say  which  seems  most  exactly  accordant  with  the  re- 
peated scriptural  declarations  of  personal  diabolical  exist-' 
ence.  Borrow  illustrations  as  to  Jewish  opinions  in  the 
time  of  Christ,  from  Josephus  and  Philo,  from  the  Rabbies, 
from  Euxtorf  and  Lightfoot, — to  which  interpretation  will 
their  testimony  and  the  historical  illustrations  afforded  by 
them,  give  support?  Allow  then,  for  the  sake  of  argu- 
ment, that  both  theories  are  embarrassed  with  some  diffi- 
culties ;  is  it  not  rational,  is  it  not  indicative  of  true  philoso- 
phy, to  embrace  that  icJnch  is  least  embarrassed  1  But  I 
deny  that  there  is  any  difficulty  in  the  Orthodox  theory,  as 
a  revealed  mutter  of  fact.  The  question  here  is  not  how  or 
why,  these  facts  exist  ?  but  simply  and  only  ivhat  facts  are 
revecded?  The  subject  is  perfectly  analagous  to  the  doctrine 
of  a  general  resurrection.  The  fact  of  such  a  resurrection 
is  plainly  revealed.  Who  can  tell  hoio  this  will  take  place, 
and  answer  all  the  questions  that  skeptical  ingenuity,  aid- 
ed by  chemical  philosophy,  can  propose  ?  Could  Paul 
have  done  this  ?  Since  the  severe  blow  given  the  Aristo- 
telian logic  by  the  Lord  Chancellor,  truly  philosophical 
minds  have  been  content  to  renounce  the  essence,  the 
mode,  and  the  reason  of  things  as  the  primary,  if  not  as 
the  ultimate,  objects  of  inquiry,  and  confine  themselves  to 
simple  facts.  It  is  this  modesty  of  inquiry  within  legiti- 
mate bounds,  that  has  produced  the  splendid  results  of 
modern  science.  Had  Dr.  Priestley  and  other  "  rational" 
inquirers  only  been  as  reasonable  in  their  religious,  as  in 
their  philosophical  investigations,  they  would  have  saved 
themselves,  their  readers,  and  their  opponents,  a  deal  of 
trouble.*  The  time  will  come,  and  is  near  at  hand,  when 
men  will  see  that  the  same  principles  which  guide  their 
*  See  note  F. 


68 

inquiries  into  the  works  of  God,  must  also  guide  their 
inquiries  into  the  word  of  God.  Then  will  the  character, 
the  perfections  and  the  will  of  the  Eternal,  now  faintly 
shadowed  forth  to  corrupted  human  hearts  from  the  former, 
beam  out  with  resistless  and  glorious  effulgence  from  the 
volume  of  his  Son. 

To  return  to  the  argument  already  offered,  I  repeat  that 
the  Orthodox  theory  harmonizes  all  the  facts  revealed  on 
this  subject,  while  no  one  Unitarian  theory,  nor  combina- 
tion of  theories,  will  do  this,  but,  on  the  contrary,  they 
constantly  involve  evident  and  acknowledged  absurdities. 
Which  is  true,  the  self-consistent  or  the  self-contradictory 
theory  ?  The  attempt  to  remove  the  personal  meaning  of 
these  passages,  and  leave  any  consistent  sense  remaining, 
would  be  as  idle,  to  use  the  beautiful  illustration  of  anoth- 
er, "  as  the  attempt  to  separate  the  veins  from  a  slab  of 
variegated  marble,  without  destroying  the  stone." 

The  argument  is  closed.  What  shall  we  say  to  it? 
Will  you  believe  Christ  and  his  apostles,  or  plunge  into 
all  the  uncertainty  and  skepticism  exhaled  from  the  fogs 
and  mists  of  Germany  ?  Will  you  assume  the  air  of 
learning,  and  talk  of  mythus,  and  poetical  fable,  and  phi- 
losophical romance,  and  eastern  drapery,  and  "  oriental 
mythology,"  and  tell  of  unenlightened  Jewish  peasants, 
and  the  progress  of  mind,  and  '*  pure  reason,"  and  go 
through  the  whole  cycle  of  learned  nonsense,  to  avoid  a 
plain  and  often  repeated  truth  of  God's  ivord  ? 

Here  let  me  ask,  can  the  fact  of  the  existence  of  evil 
spirits  be  disproved  1  Are  there  any  passages  of  scripture, 
which  so  clearly  assert  the  non-existence  of  evil  spirits,  as 
to  nullify  or  render  doubtful  the  import  of  those  already 
quoted  and  commented  upon  ?  Are  there  any  which 
even  hint  such  a  denial  ? 

Let  it  be  distinctly  understood,  that  the  fact,  often 
asserted  in  scripture   and  confirmed   by  reason  and  con- 


69 

science,  that  men's  sins  arc  their  own,  and  that  they  are 
accountable  for  them,  does  not  in  the  least  affect  the  sub- 
ject in  dispute.  They  are  tlius  accountable,  whether 
these  sins  spring  entirely  and  solely  from  an  evil  heart, 
or  whether  they  are  induced  to  commit  them  by  an  addi- 
tional influence  of  wicked  men  or  wicked  angels,  by 
visible  or  invisible  enticers.  No  violence  or  force  is  of- 
fered to  their  moral  nature  in  either  case.  They  act  of 
their  own  choice,  freely,  voluntarily,  and  are,  of  course, 
moral  agents,  or  in  other  words,  are  responsible  for  their 
conduct.  A  man  is  not  held  innocent  because  his  wife 
tempts  him  with  the  prospect  of  gain,  to  commit  murder. 
Judas  is  not  thought  blameless  because  the  priests  and 
rulers  tempted  him  ''  with  thirty  pieces  of  silver"  to  be- 
tray his  master.  Is  his  innocence  established  because 
"  Satan  put  it  into  his  heart"  ?  A  disposition  to  cherish 
or  to  comply  with  the  suggestion  of  Satan  was  evil,  and  in 
this  Judas  sinned.  A  disposition  to  comply  with  the 
offer  of  the  priests  was  evil,  and  in  this  also  Judas  sinned. 
All  this  is  perfectly  consistent  with  the  declaration  of  St. 
James,  that  "  every  man  is  tempted,  when  he  is  drawn 
away  of  his  own  lust,  and  enticed."  This  is  the  only 
passage  from  the  New  Testament  which  I  now  recollect 
to  have  seen  adduced,  with  which  to  oppose  the  multi- 
tude of  passages  quoted  in  these  Letters  ;  a  passage,  which 
if  it  prove  that  Judas  could  not  have  been  tempted  by 
Satan,  proves  also  that  he  could  not  have  been  tempted 
by  the  priests  with  the  thirty  pieces  of  silver. 

Again.  Let  it  be  remembered  that  the  fact,  that  God 
overrules  all  the  beings,  and  controls  all  the  events  of  the 
universe,  does  not  touch  the  question.  The  universal 
providential  government  of  God,  extends  to  '^  the  vast  and 
the  minute,"  to  the  evil  and  to  the  good,  to  his  enemies 
no  less  than  to  his  friends.  When  Jehovah  declares,  by 
the  prophet  Isaiah,  "  I  form  the  light  and  create  dark- 
en 


70 

ness ;  I  make  peace  and  create  evil ;  I  the  Lord  do  all 
these  things  ;"  or  when  he  asks  by  the  prophet  Amos, 
"  shall  there  be  evil  in  the  city,  and  the  Lord  hath  not 
done  it  ?"  is  it  rational  to  infer  that  there  is  no  other 
intelligent  being  in  the  universe,  who  can  sin  and  tempt 
others  to  sin  ?  If  these  passages  disprove  the  existence  of 
Satan,  they  disprove  at  the  same  time  the  existence  of  evil 
men.  The  fact  is,  however,  that  they  have  only  a  remote 
and  indirect  bearing  upon  the  subject ;  no  other  relation 
than  what  may  spring  out  of  the  much  agitated  question 
as  to  the  existence,  origin,  and  end  of  moral  evil.  Yet 
these  are  the  strongest  objections  I  have  anywhere  met 
with  against  the  repeated  and  univocal  declarations  of 
sacred  writ ;  objections  totally  without  weight,  unless 
they  disprove  that  men  are  sinners.  It  is  only  the  weak- 
est of  weak  causes  that  thus  renounces  the  explicit  decla- 
rations of  Christ,  made  and  repeated  under  every  variety 
of  circumstance  on  earth,  and  even  confirmed  from 
heaven,  for  a  metaphysical  disputation  as  to  the  origin  of 
evil.  Is  it  not  the  boast  of  Unitarians,  (no  matter  whether 
well  or  ill  founded,)  that  they  draw  their  instructions, 
their  system  of  doctrines,  duties,  &c.  from  what  Christ 
personally  taught  during  his  ministry  1  Is  it  not,  profes- 
sedly, on  this  account  that  they  pay  a  higher  deference 
to  the  gospels  than  to  the  other  portions  of  the  New 
Testament  1 

On  this  Unitarian  assumption,  (granting  what  they  have 
hitherto  repeatedly  affirmed,  to  be  true,)  that  the  instruc- 
tions of  Christ  loere  not  only  more  intelligible  than  those 
of  the  prophets,  but  also  more  than  those  of  the  apostles, 
I  have  in  the  preceding  Letters  built  my  argument.  My 
object  has  been  in  the  first  place  to  discover  what  Christ 
taught  during  his  personal  ministry.  Will  any  Unitarian 
shrink  from  this  inquiry?  Will  he  prefer  what  can,  at 
most,  be  but  a  doubtful  expression  of  Isaiah,  to  the  certain 


71 

and  intelligible  assertion  of  Christ?  One  might,  with 
equal  propriety,  reason  with  a  pendulum,  as  with  such 
pretenders  to  logic  ;  never  at  rest  in  one  place,  but  first 
in  one  extreme,  then  in  the  other.  I  do  not  allow  that 
there  is  the  least  contrariety  between  what  Christ  taught 
personally,  and  what  he  taught  by  the  prophets  before, 
and  by  the  apostles  after  him.  The  only  apostolical  pas- 
sage adduced  against  the  personal  existence  of  Satan,  is 
that  from  James,  which  is  perfectly  consistent  with  all  the 
passages  on  which  any  reliance  has  been  placed,  and  the 
quotations  from  Isaiah  and  Amos  are  wholly  irrelevant.  Is 
there,  then,  any  reason  for  explaining  away  and  disbe- 
lieving the  many  reiterated  declarations  of  scripture,  which 
at  the  first  blush,  and  after  the  most  thorough  examina- 
tion, evidently  state  the  fact  of  diabolical  existence  and 
agency  ?  If  this  were  an  error,  why  did  not  Christ  ex- 
plode it  ?  Whi/  need  he  have  confirmed  it  7  Is  not  a  single 
"  thus  saith  the  Lord,"  worth  a  thousand  fancies,  reason- 
ings, and  hypotheses  of  the  most  learned  theologians  1 
What  do  we  know  of  the  unseen,  eternal,  spiritual  world, 
except  what  the  Bible  reveals  1  What  can  the  Bible  re- 
veal, iclicd  can  God  himself  possibly  reveal,  in  regard  to 
that  unknown  world,  whither  we  are  rapidly  tending,  if, 
after  admitting  the  Bible  to  contain  his  revealed  will,  we 
subject  his  declarations  to  our  purblind  reason  in  this  cradle 
and  shell  of  our  existence  1  Does  not  the  short-sightedness 
of  reason  prevent  our  looking  "  a  step  beyond  the  grave?" 
Cannot  Omnipotence,  that  created  millions  of  worlds,  and 
spread  them  out  through  infinite  space,  have  also  peopled 
them  with  myriads  of  intelligences  ?  Must  all  these  be 
dwarfed  to  the  puny  dimensions  of  earth-born  man  ?  Is 
there  not  truth,  as  well  as  poetry  in  the  declaration, 
"Think  not,  though  men  were  none, 
That  heaven  would  want  spectators,  God  want  praise." 

AmonfT    the  millions  of    spirits    "  that  walk   the    earth 


72 

unseen,"  why  may  not  some  be^'H'?*  Will  Unitarian 
notions  of  moral  liberty  present  any  obstacle  to  the  belief, 
that  some  of  them  may  have  perverted  their  high  powers, 
and  apostatized  from  their  allegiance  to  the  Lord  of  the 
Universe  1  If  good  angels  are  *'  ministering  spirits  sent 
forth  to  encamp  about  the  righteous,"  why  may  not  evil 
spirits  seduce  the  ungodly  to  greater  ungodliness  1  What 
is  there  mysterious,  unscriptural,  irrational,  or  anti-analogi- 
cal in  the  fact,  that  intelligences  of  a  higher  power,  offi- 
cial or  intellectual,  real  or  relative,  should  be  disposed  to 
draw  those  of  lesser  capacity  into  sin  ?  Were  Jeroboam 
and  Lord  Byron  scrupulously  conscientious  on  this  point? 
Is  it  not  a  most  extensive  principle,  that  "  misery  loves 
company  ?"  Does  not  the  very  nature  and  essence  of  sin 
consist  in  malevolence  ?  just  as,  on  the  other  hand,  ho- 
liness is  benevolence,  God  is  love  1  Learned  men  may 
speculate  what  they  will  on  the  nature  of  sin,  as  consist- 
ing in  the  transgression  of  law  published  or  imprinted  on 
the  original  constitution  of  the  soul,  they  do  not  reach  the 
full  truth  of  the  case  till  they  understand,  that  sin,  of  its 
own  proper  nature,  exhibited,  simply  in  .and  by  itself,  is 
unmixed,  defecated  malevolence,  hostility  to  all  good,  in- 
clination to  all  evil.  Such  it  is  in  hell.  Such  it  is  among 
the  fallen  spirits  of  the  unseen  world.  If  such  spirits 
exist,  the  simple  question  is,  have  they  any  injiuence  over 
men  7     Who  can  answer  this  question  ?     Can  reason  un- 

*  If  the  existence  of  Satan  and  of  evil  spirits  be  an  oriental  fiction, 
is  not  the  existence  of  good  spirits  such  a  fiction  also  ?  What  firmer 
foundation  would  a  thorough  rationalist  want  for  his  anti-angelical 
creed,  than  the  following  lines  from  Hesiod  ? 

"  Aerial  spirits,  by  great  Jove  designed 
To  be  on  earth  the  guardians  of  mankind  ; 
Invisible  to  mortal  e3es  they  go, 
And  mark  our  actions,  good  or  bad,  below : 
Th'  immortal  spies  with  watchful  care  preside, 
And  thrice  ten  thousand  round  their  charges  glide. 
They  can  reward  with  glory  or  with  gold, 
Such  power  divine  permission  bids  them  hold." 

fVorks  and  days.  B.  i.  v.  120. 


73 

enlightened  by  revelation  ?  Can  experience,  however 
general  ?  Their  answer  might  be  ambiguous,  and  would 
certainly  be  unauthoritative.  The  only  indisputable  answer 
must  come  from  one  who  knew  the  truth,  would  state  the 
truth,  and  ivliose  testimony ^  ive  hwio  by  sufficient  evidence, 
is  true.  Such  an  answer  we  have  heard  from  the  lips  of 
Jesus  Christ,  and  heard  it  confirmed  by  all  his  apostles 
whose  written  testimony  has  come  down  to  us.  There  is 
no  room  for  a  subsequent  question  as  to  the  how  in  this  mat- 
ter. The  current  philosophy  would  teach  us  there  is  no 
how  in  the  universe,  at  least  no  intelligible,  explicable  how. 
Actual  facts,  we  are  assured,  antecedent,  coincident,  or 
subsequent,  are  the  only  ho20s  of  philosophical  investiga- 
tion or  rational  belief 

If,  however,  you  will  not  believe  a  fact  till  you  under- 
stand how  it  is,  how  is  your  soul  united  to  your  body  ? 
Are  you  not  constrained  to  reply,  as  all  others  have  been 
before  you,  "  I  do  not  know"  ?  Disbelieve  the  fact  then. 
Your  soul  is  not  united  to  your  body  ;  or  you  have  no 
soul ;  or  you  have  no  body.  If  ignorance  of  the  mode  in 
which  a  fact  exists  is  to  disprove  the  fact,  each  and  all  of 
these  conclusions  may  be  legitimately  drawn  from  man's 
ignorance  of  the  mode  in  which  spirit  and  matter  are  con- 
nected in  himself 

Do  you  deny  the  existence,  presence,  and  influence  of 
evil  spirits,  because  you  cannot  perceive  and  comprehend 
them  ?  Can  you  perceive  or  comprehend  the  existence, 
presence,  and  influence  of  an  all-pervading,  ever-present, 
infinite  Spirit,  "  in  whom  you  live  and  move  and  have 
your  being  "?  Must  you  not  say  with  Job,  "  Behold,  I  go 
forward,  but  he  is  not  there  ;  backward,  but  I  cannot 
perceive  him  ;  on  the  left  hand,  where  he  doth  work,  but 
I  cannot  behold  him  ;  he  hideth  himself  on  the  right  hand, 
that  I  cannot  see  him"  1  Follow  out  your  principles.  You 
cannot  perceive  by  any  internal  sense,  by  any  perspicaci- 


74 

ty  of  intellect,  a  present,  incomprehensible,  impalpable 
Spirit.  He  cannot  exist.  You  are  an  atheist.  You 
shrink  with  horror  from  this  conclusion.  It  is  the  legiti- 
mate, the  inevitable  result  of  your  principles  of  reasoning. 
But  if  one  Spirit  may  be  present  to  our  souls,  yes,  must 
be  ever  present  or  we  sink  into  annihilation,  and  yet  we 
are  unconscious  of  this  sustaining,  ever-active  energy, 
why  may  not  other  spirits  be  present,  either  constantly  or 
occasionally,  and  we  be  unconscious  of  their  presence  ? 
Does  God  know  the  creatures  of  his  power  1  their  nature, 
their  capacities,  dispositions,  efforts  and  tendencies  ?  If 
so,  shall  the  Omniscient  be  credited  when  he  speaks,  or  be 
subjected  to  the  skepticism  of  an  insect,  that,  but  as  yes- 
terday, saw  the  sun,  and  to-morrow  shall  see  it  no  more  ? 
Shall  loe  believe  God  or  not  1  Shall  we  follow  the  bewil- 
dering light,  the  ignis  fatuus,  which  Hume  or  Eichhorn 
may  hold  out  to  allure  us,  or  Him,  who  is  the  way.  The 
Truth,  and  the  life? 

There  is,  then,  in  short,  no  reason,  no  argument,  no 
analogy,  no  plausibility,  for  which  to  give  up  the  plain, 
repeated,  intelligible  declarations  of  eternal  truth  on  this 
subject  ?* 

Before  proceeding  to  some  practical  remarks,  which 
either  spring  from,  or  are  intimately  connected  with  the 
subject  discussed,  I  wish  to  say,  that  the  testimony  of  the 
Lord  Jesus,  and  of  his  apostles,  is  the  only  ground  taken 
or  desired  for  belief  on  this  question.  What  their  repeat- 
ed, explicit,  and  united  testimony  is,  has  been  seen.  All 
other  authority  has  been  rejected.  The  Council  of  Trent 
and  the  Augsburg  Confession,  the  Synod  of  Dort  and 
the  Racovian  Catechism,  the  Thirty  Nine  Articles  and 
the  Assembly's  Confession  of  Faith,  Rome  and  Canter- 
bury, Andover  and  Cambridge,  the  churches  of  Boston, 
whether  creedless  or  "  trust  deed"-ed,  have  been  thrown 
*  See  note  G. 


75 

aside  to  give  place  to  this  one  question,    1V7iat  saith  the 
scripture  /* 

Whoever  shall  honor  the  writer  with  the  notice  of  a 
reply  or  review,  or  attempt  to  instruct  an  inquiring  and 
intelligent  community  on  the  subject  here  discussed,  will 
permit  him  to  suggest,  that  a  simply  scriptural  discussion 
is  what  the  course  here  pursued  and  the  exigencies  of  the 
times  require.  An  answer,  to  deserve  the  name,  must 
consist  of  a  refutation  of  the  arguments  here  advanced  hy 
a  critical  examination  and  satisfactory  explanation  of  the 
texts  here  quoted.  Let  the  remark,  often  quoted,  "  retor- 
quere  non  est  respondere,"  not  be  forgotten.  '*  A  virtual 
answer"  may  ''differ  widely"  from  an  actual  answer,  and 
has  sometimes  been  thought  a  softer  name  for  "  evasion." 
Having  taken  my  stand  on  the  great  Protestant  principle, 
a  principle  often  acknowledged  and  appealed  to  by  Uni- 
tarians, to  wit,  the  entire  sufficiency  of  the  scriptures  as 
the  only  rule  of  faith  and  practice,  I  shall  not  willingly 
and  of  my  own  accord  be  drawn  into  any  other  discus- 
sion. If,  however,  contrary  to  the  wishes  indulged  and 
here  expressed,  any  gentleman  shall  think  that  important 
information  may  be  obtained  or  illustration  thrown  upon 
the  subject  by  an  examination  of  eastern  mythology,  or 
by  a  comparison  of  the  philosophical  tenets  of  minds 
widely  separated  in  time  and  place,  or  by  an  etymological 
view  of  such  words  as  Abaddon,  Baalzebub,  Diabolos, 
Satan,  dz/C.  or  by  an  extended  comparison  of  the  classical 
and  scriptural  use  of  demon,  daimonion,  &lc.  or  by  an  ex- 
amination of  patristical  opinions,  or  by  a  collation  of  the 
opinions  of  all  ages  and  all  countries,  early  and  late,  re- 
mote, savage,  and  civilized,  the  writer  hereby  expresses  his 
entire  readiness,  should  Providence  permit,  to  enter  on  such 
an  investigation,  after  a  reply  of  the  character  above  de- 
scribed shall  have  been  given. 

*  See  note  H. 


76 

I  cannot  here  hint  at  even  the  heads  of  argument  that 
might  be  pursued,  should  the  scriptural  ground  be  thought 
insufficient,  each  of  which  might  be  auxiliary  to  the  truth. 
Still  the  writer  repeats,  that  such  a  course  of  investigation 
he  does  not  wish  to  pursue,  not  because  he  has  the  slight- 
est doubt  as  to  the  result,  but  from  the  wish  to  restrict 
the  discussion  within  its  appropriate  limits.  The  scrip- 
tures are  a  common  arbiter,  and  to  their  decision,  fairly 
made  out,  each  party,  as  yet,  allows  itself  bound  to  submit. 
When  we  make  reason,  unenlightened  by  revelation,  the 
umpire,  we  enter  on  a  wide  interminable  field  of  fancy, 
vagary  and  folly,  which  different  minds  may  explore,  and, 
culling  what  suits,  and  rejecting  what  opposes  their  con- 
flicting theories,  they  may  make  out  by  apparent  learning 
and  wily  ingenuity,  a  plausible  defence  of  any  system, 
however  futile  or  preposterous.  To  those  best  acquainted 
with  the  history  of  controversies,  these  remarks  will  ap- 
pear most  pertinent  and  forcible.  I  repeat  again,  that  the 
proper  arbiter  is  that,  whose  decision  is  final  and  author- 
itative, the  Bible.  To  this  the  discussion  has  in  these 
Letters  been  confined,  and  to  this,  so  far  as  the  writer  is 
voluntarily  concerned,  it  will  continue  to  be  confined. 

I  have  one  request  to  make  of  the  reader  of  these  Let- 
ters, viz.  that  he  will  consider  why  the  terms  "  principle 
of  evil,"  and  "disease,"  have  been  so  frequently  repeated. 
These  are  the  main  theories  of  those  professing  to  believe 
the  scriptures,  and  yet  denying  the  personal  existence  of 
the  great  adversary  of  souls,  and  of  evil  spirits. 


77 


LETTER  VII. 

Rev.  and  Dear  Sir, 

Reflecting  on  the  arguments  presented  in  these  Letters, 
each  of  which  proves  the  position  taken,  some  remarks 
suggest  themselves  of  solemn  import. 

One  is,  That  tvhile  men  doubt  or  resolutely  deny  the 
agency  of  Satan,  they  may  at  that  very  moment  be  giving 
strong  evidence  that  his  malignant  injiuence  is  greatest 
upon  them. 

The  writer's  powers  of  exaggeration  fail,  who  describes 
the  Orthodox  belief  as  "  a  notion  that  the  world  is  under 
the  dominion  of  a  presiding  spirit,  who  divides  the  empire 
with  the  only  God."  The  prince  of  this  world  is  not  content 
with  a  divided  allegiance  or  sovereignty.  He  is  a  thorough 
usurper.  He,  ichose  right  it  is  to  reign,  the  Creator  and 
Preserver,  the  Redeemer  and  Sanctifier  of  man,  is  cast  out 
from  the  heart,  while  Satan  meets  with  no  resistance  to 
his  ill-gotten  authority  from  man  himself.  Man  does  not, 
by  nature,  even  know  that  he  is  thus  enslaved.  When 
the  declaration  is  made,  he  denies  it ;  his  feelings  rise 
in  ^nger  at  the  imputation.  P^xamine,  examine  well  the 
feelings  that  rise  in  your  bosom  at  this  declaration  ;  you 
must  be  turned  "from  the  power  of  Satan  unto  God." 
He  that  is  of  God  heareth  God's  words.  The  declaration 
of  Baxter  is  naked,  but  momentous  truth,  that  "  the  soul 
of  every  man  is  by  nature  Satan's  garrison ;  all  is  at  peace 
in  such  a  man  till  Christ  comes,  and  gives  it  terrible 
alarms  of  judgment  and  hell,  batters  it  with  the  ordnance 
of  his  threats  and  terrors,  forces  it  to  yield  to  his  mere 
mercy,  and  take  him  for  the  governor  ;  then  doth  he  cast 
out  Satan,  overcome  him,  take  from  him  all  his  armour 
wherein  he  trusted,  and  divideth  his  spoils ;  and  then  doth 
7 


78 

he  make  a  firm  and  lasting  peace."  Have  you  ever  re- 
flected that  you  have  an  invisible  active  enemy,  whose  as- 
saults can  be  resisted  only  by  repentance  for  sin,  by  faith 
in  the  divine  promises,  by  prayer  for  heavenly  strength  and 
light,  by  the  word  of  God,  by  a  holy  life,  by  the  hope  of 
salvation  through  Jesus  Christ?  Clad  in  this  panoply 
of  heaven,  the  Christian  soldier  may  go  forth  to  his 
spiritual  conflicts,  fearless  of  assaults  and  confident  of 
victory,  and  while  engaged  in  the  heat  of  battle,  he  may 
send  forth  shouts,  jubilant  of  praise  to  his  great  Captain, 
who  fought,  conquered  as  he  fell,  rose,  reigns,  and  shall 
forever  reign. 

Another  remark  is,  That  Satan  has  few  more  success- 
ful servants,  (though  they  hiow  it  not,  and  mean  not  so,) 
than  those  professed  teachers  of  Christianity,  who  either 
openly  deny  his  existence,  or,  by  never  asserting  it,  let  it 
slip  out  of  the  minds  of  their  hearers. 

The  amiable  and  estimable  qualities,  the  varied  learn- 
ing and  beneficent  dispositions  of  such  teachers,  may 
make  them  revered  and  loved  and  honored  in  any  com- 
munity. Bat  if  there  prowl  about  a  terrible  adversary,  '*  as 
a  roaring  lion,"  thirsting  for  blood,  seeking  with  a  sleep- 
loss  activity  ''  whom  he  may  devour,"  and  they  disbelieve 
and  deny  it,  and,  watchmen  and  shepherds  of  the  flock  as 
they  are  reputed,  they  cry  "  all's  well,"  "  peace,  peace," 
v/hen  imminent  danger  threatens,  and  "there  is  no  peace," 
but  "  sudden  destruction  cometh,"  are  they  not  the  great- 
est enemies  of  those  committed  to  their  trust  ?  It  is, 
indeed,  a  most  ungrateful  task  to  bring  forward,  either 
directly  or  by  implication,  such  a  charge  against  a  highly 
respectable  portion  of  the  community.  Sensibility  would 
gladly  keep  silence.  But,  if  the  argument,  herein  pursued, 
be  valid,  I  trust  to  the  intelligent  candor  of  the  gentle- 
men implicated  to  say,  whether  the  charge  is  not  well 
f  mnded,  and  whether   duty  does  not  demand  that  it  be 


79 

made.  I  take  my  stand  on  the  declarations  of  the  New 
Testament.  If  these  have  been  interpreted  correctly,  all 
must  allow  that  the  char^re  is  too  true;  and  surely  we 
should  not  shrink  from  publishing  the  truth  Christ  preach- 
ed, whoever  may  feel  themselves  condemned  by  it.  If  this 
interpretation  be  erroneous,  let  these  gentlemen,  who 
certainly  are  competent,  show  it,  and  I  will  as  readily  ac- 
knowledge my  error  and  make  all  concessions,  by  them 
and  the  public  deemed  proper,  as  I  now  bring  forward 
this  charge.  It  will  be  seen,  on  a  moment's  reflection, 
that  the  imputation  which  may  by  some  be  thought  per- 
sonal and  invidious,  is  the  necessary  inference  from  the 
Orthodox  view  of  this  contested  subject.  Truth,  truth, 
not  men,  should  he  sought  and  honored.  Determined  op- 
position to  the  opinions,  by  us  deemed  false  and  danger- 
ous, of  those  about  us,  may  certainly  consist  with  the 
kindest  feelings  towards  those  who  entertain  those  opin- 
ions. No  one  would  more  readily  pay  the  tribute  of 
merited  respect  to  the  integrity,  the  exemplary  manners, 
the  kindly  social  virtues,  the  literary  and  general  intelli- 
gence of  the  Unitarian  clergy  of  New  England,  than  the 
writer.  Eulogium  I  shall  not  write.  Truth  I  will  not 
conceal,  but  with  the  modicum  of  ability  I  possess,  will 
distinctly  state,  "  without  fear  or  favor  or  hope  of  reward." 
I  call  upon  those,  who  are  standing  as  beacon  lights  to 
direct  immortal  voyagers  over  *'  that  vast  ocean  they  must 
sail  so  soon,"  to  beware,  lest  they  put  the  coruscations  of 
their  fancy  in  the  place  of  that  light  which  has  burst  upon 
our  world  from  the  throne  of  God.  Vain  are  all  brilliancy 
of  imagination,  kindliness  of  affection,  and  nobleness  of 
nature,  vain  are  all  intellectual  attainments,  all  cultivation 
of  taste  and  refinement  of  feeling,  which  exist  independ- 
ently of  the  great  change,  the  second  creation  in  Christ 
Jesus  to  good  works,  that  divine  regeneration  by  the 
Spirit  of  God,  by  which  holiness  is  wrought  into  the  un- 


80 

dying  soul,  and  "  without  which  no  man  shall  see  the 
Lord."  All  else  is  but  bran,  chaff,  husks.  The  chisel 
may  have  unveiled  the  majestic  form  ;  the  pencil  may 
have  caused  the  all  but  living  group  to  start  from  the  can- 
vass ;  the  orator  by  the  energy  or  the  pathos  of  his  elo- 
quence may  have  "  ruled  the  wilderness  of  free  minds 
with  unbounded  authority  ;"  the  poet,  catching  inspiration 
from  the  fervid  glow  of  his  own  intense  and  creative 
spirit,  may  have  sent  forth  strains  of  unearthly  sound,  and 
more  than  earthly  might,  by  which  he  outlives  kings  and 
conquerors  and  empires  ;  yet  upon  the  walls  of  this  glo- 
rious fabric,  erected  to  honor  and  perpetuate  the  triumphs 
of  human  genius,  a  man's  hand  may  be  seen  writing,  thou 
art  weighed  in  the  balances  and  art  found  loanting. 
Knees,  that  trembled  when  rising  to  address  a  British  or 
an  American  senate,  may  never  have  knelt  in  humble 
reverence  to  the  King  of  kings.  The  noble  heart,  that 
scorned  an  ignoble  deed,  may  never  have  felt  one  throb 
of  penitence  for  sin,  or  one  pulsation  of  gratitude  for  re- 
deeming love  ;  no,  may  have  scorned  the  service  of  Hinij 
that,  born  in  a  manger,  was  crucified  with  thieves.  Art- 
ists and  poets  and  orators  and  statesmen  there  have  been, 
that  have  given  too  fearful  evidence  that  they  knew  not 
God,  and  obeyed  not  the  gospel  of  his  Son  ;  whose  great 
engrossing  object  of  pursuit  has  been,  not,  to  render 
thanks  to  the  giver  of  life  and  talent  and  opportunity  of 
personal  improvement ;  not,  to  adore  the  perfections  of 
Infinite  Eternal  Excellence;  not, to  admire  ''the  unsearch- 
able riches  of  Christ,"  which  arrest  the  inquiries,  and 
pass  the  comprehension  of  the  heavenly  host ;  no,  none  of 
this  ;  hut  to  perpetuate  their  own  fame,  when  they  them- 
selves shall  have  quit  the  earth,  and  have  been  called  into 
the  presence  of  their  Maker  and  their  Judge.  Is  not  the 
hand  of  the  Great  Deceiver  in  this,  thus  to  hold  out  an  illu- 
sive shadow  before  these  gifted  intellects,  which  they  pur- 


81 

sue  with  such  an  intensity  of  eagerness,  and  which  van- 
ishes when  grasped,  while  the  bread  of  heaven,  of  which 
if  a  man  eat  he  shall  never  hunger,  offered  freely  by  a 
divine  hand,  without  money  and  without  price,  is  rejected 
as  loathsome  and  nauseous  ?  Well  might  Burke  patheti- 
cally exclaim,  "  what  shadows  we  are,  and  what  shadows 
we  pursue  !  "  If  all  this  may  be  true,  as  it  certainly  is,  it 
need  excite  no  great  additional  wonder,  that  others  of  the 
same  race,  temperament,  and  character,  should  pass  their 
lives  within  the  precincts  of  the  catholic  or  protestant 
church,  all  unconscious  of  their  alienation  from  God, 
their  subjection  to  Satan,  and  of  the  necessity  of  a  mighty 
influence  from  on  high  to  be  sought  in  a  divinely  ap- 
pointed way,  to  create  them  anew  in  Christ  Jesus. 

A  profession  adopted  at  first,  perhaps,  to  please  friends, 
perhaps  for  w  hat  may  be  thought  its  learned  leisure,  or  for 
its  acknowledged  respectability,  with  but  little  thought  of 
the  immense,  unspeakable  responsibility  of  having  the 
care,  the  direction,  and,  in  a  great  degree,  the  formation 
of  immortal  souls  for  an  endless  destiny  beyond  the  grave ; 
a  profession,  thus  adopted,  becomes  ere  hmg  a  business 
merely,  not  unfrequently,  a  drudgery.  The  scriptures 
are  studied,  either  to  support  a  system,  or  to  find  materials 
for  a  sermon,  an  essay,  or  a  dispute.  It  is  to  be  feared 
that  this  is  the  fact  with  numbers  of  every  religious  de- 
nomination. Biblical  critics  have  too  often  been  any  thing 
but  Bible  Christians.  The  man  of  God,  thoroughly  fur' 
nishecJ,  should  combine  both  characters.  Can  there  be 
any  wonder  that  teachers  of  an  intelligent  and  naturally 
amiable  character,  but  ignorant  of  their  own  alienation 
from  God,  and  of  the  necessity  of  regeneration  by  the 
Spirit  of  God,  should  also  be  ignorant  of  that  enemy  by 
whose  devices  as  *'  an  angel  of  light,"  it  is  greatly  to  be 
feared,  they  are  ensnared  ?  Well  did  a  heathen  say  the 
precept,  "  know  thyself,"  descended  from  heaven.  True 
7* 


82 

self-knowledge  is  of  heavenly  origin.  Let  Orthodox  clergy- 
men, whether  Baptist  or  FJpiscopalian,  Methodist,  Presby- 
terian or  Congregational,  take  heed  to  themselves,  that  they 
love  the  Saviour,  while  they  preach  the  truth  as  it  is  in  Je- 
sus. While  other  reputed  teachers  deny  the  empire  and  the 
agency  of  Satan,  the  prince  of  this  world,  let  them  never 
shun  to  declare  the  whole  counsel  of  God  on  this,  as  on 
every  other  subject.  Is  there  not  among  the  Orthodox 
clergy  and  societies  at  the  present  moment,  a  false  delica- 
cy on  this  subject  ?  This  ancient  and  active  enemy  of 
man  smiles  in  his  wrath,  when,  in  compliance  with  a 
sickliness  of  taste,  or  through  fear  of  offence,  those  that 
should  be  bold  for  the  truth  shrink  from  declaring  it.  If 
the  bosom  of  Satan  is  ever  the  seat  of  one  happy  emotion, 
it  is,  when  those,  set  to  icarn  men  of  his  devices,  deny 
his  existence ;  his  joy  is  complete,  tohen  his  agency  is 
ridiculed. 

Another  remark  is.  That  this  doctrine  does  not  stand 
cdonc,  but  is  indissolubly  connected  icith  the  other  great 
truths  of  the  Orthodox  system. 

If  this  world  is  under  the  usurped  dominion  of  a  great 
fallen  spirit,  the  enemy  alike  of  God  and  man,  the  doctrine 
of  man's  original  entire  depravity  will  cease  to  be  an  incredi- 
ble enigma.  And  if  Satan  "  rules  in  the  hearts  of  the  chil- 
dren of  disobedience,"  deceiving  and  "  leading  astray  the 
whole  world,"  the  necessity  of  the  interposition  of  the  Son 
of  God  "  to  destroy  the  works  of  the  devil,"  will  become 
apparent.  Hence  also  the  necessity  of  the  Divine  Spirit, 
"to  create  men  anew  in  Christ  Jesus."  Man's  alienation 
from  God,  and  aversion  to  his  sovereign  character  and  holy 
government,  will  no  longer  be  denied  as  a  doctrine  of  reve- 
lation. "  The  carnal  mind  "  will  be  seen  "to  be  enmity 
against  God."  Now,  without  a  stock  of  Rabbinical 
learning,  the  Saviour's  declaration  will  be  very  plain, 
"  except  a  man  be  born  again,  he  cannot  see  the  king- 


83 

dom  of  God."  And  the  impenitent,  it  will  also  be  seen, 
"  must  go  away  into  everlasting  punishment."  These  and 
other  associated  doctrines  stand  or  fall  together.  On  the 
simple  fact,  then,  whether  Christ,  speaking  to  the  Jews  of 
Satan,  the  devil,  the  prince  of  this  world,  &c.,  meant 
what  these  words  plainly  express,  and  what  the  Jews  un- 
derstood them  to  mean,  may  be  considered  as  depending 
the  truth  of  the  great  cardinal  doctrines  of  Orthodoxy,  viz. 
man's  original  apostacy,  continued  and  entire  depravity, 
redemption  by  the  Son  of  God,  regeneration  by  the  Holy 
Spirit,  a  heaven  of  blessedness  for  penitent,  obedient  be- 
lievers, and  an  eternal  hell  for  the  finally  impenitent. 

Here  I  willingly  state,  that  this  remark  is  one  which  has 
been  borne  in  mind  from  the  commencement  of  this  dis- 
cussion. I  have  wished  Unitarians  and  Universalists,  (who, 
with  different  names,  are  essentially  one,*)  who  solemnly 
profess  to  receive  the  Bible,  as  the  only,  the  sufficient,  and 
the  obligatory  rule  of  their  faith  and  practice,  to  shift  the 
position  from  which  they  have  been  accustomed  to  look  at 
Orthodoxy,  and  to  view  the  subject  in  another  light  and 
from  another  quarter.  The  passages  of  scripture,  which 
the  Orthodox  quote  to  prove  the  divinity  of  Christ,  origi- 
nal sin,  atonement,  &c.,  have  been  so  often  produced, 
and  so  often  considered  by  those  now  grown  old  in  this 
controversy,  that  it  were  idle  to  expect,  by  them,  to  awaken 
a  new  train  of  thought  in  minds  thus  barricaded  by  preju- 
dice. These  passages  are  now  classed  as  spurious,  of 
doubtful  authority,  ambiguous,  mistranslated,  not  to  the 
point,  &-C.  &c.,  so  that  the  critic  and  the  pretender  to  a 
critical  acquaintance  with  the  scriptures,  is  armed,  or 
imagines  himself  armed  cap-a-pie,  ready  to  ward  off  any 
blow,  or  parry  any  thrust,  from  that  quarter.  Perhaps  by 
varying  the    point  of  attack,   an   assailable  spot  may   be 

*  See  Note  I. 


84 

found  that  will  lead  at  once  to  the  enemy's  fortress.  Spu- 
rious, doubtful,  ambiguous,  mistranslated,  pointless  texts, 
have  given  place,  English  Unitarians  being  judges,  to 
those  which  are  genuine,  of  indisputable  authority,  *'  found 
in  the  oldest  manuscripts,"  of  univocal  meaning,  cor- 
rectly translated,   and  perfectly  to  the  point. 

Even  now,  it  will  be  perceived  by  a  subsequent  note, 
the  most  prominent  leaders  of  the  Unitarian  party  are 
openly  and  fearlessly  publishing  opinions  in  regard  to 
parts  of  the  Bible,  which  have  heretofore  been  kept  back, 
or  only  let  out  drop  by  drop,  with  a  cautious  (shall  I  add, 
time-serving  ? )  timidity,  that  proves  these  leaders  to  have 
been  heretofore  fearful,  that  the  people  were  not  quite 
prepared  for  a  naked  plunge  into  the  stream  of  pure,  ra- 
tional truth.  These  leaders  would  now  seem  nearly,  if  not 
quite,  ready  to  quit  the  inspired  authority  of  the  sacred 
volume  for  —  what  1  Who  of  themselves  can  tell  1  We 
could  point  them  to  a  land  where  learning  has  had  its 
most  illustrious  votaries ;  where  inquiry  on  religious 
topics  has  been  free  as  air  ;  where  "  rational"  Christianity 
has  "had  full  sweep,"  experiencing  but  slight  opposition 
from  gloomy,  calvinistic,  puritanical,  pharisaical  strict- 
ness ;  where  every  received  truth  has  been  subjected  to 
the  most  rigid  test,  to  the  most  fearless  scrutiny  ;  where 
all  possible  disjunctions  and  alliances,  permutations  and 
combinations  of  opinion  have  had  their  day,  been  tried, 
condemned,  and  passed  off  to  forgetfulness.  But  the  sun 
of  truth,  which  rose  upon  the  world  at  Luther's  bidding, 
obscured  for  a  time,  has  again  burst  forth,  promising  to 
shine  brighter  and  brighter  unto  the  perfect  day.  Are 
Unitarians  here,  prepared  for  German  experiments  and 
German  neology? 

"I  would  that  I  could  pierce  the  ears,  as  with  a  trum- 
pet-call, of  those  who  stand"  in  the  pulpits,  and  preside 
over  the  first  and  the  cherished  Institution,  of  our  Pilgrim 


85 

Fathers.  "  I  would  awaken  them  from  their  slumber  to 
the  fearful  responsibility  they  incur"  by  withholding,  dis- 
guising, or  misrepresenting  that  system  of  divine  truth, 
which  their  fathers  would  have  poured  out  their  life's-blood 
to  its  last  drop,  rather  than  have  renounced  or  concealed. 
"  I  would  implore  them  to  look  to  it,  lest,  when  poor  and 
wretched  man,  with  the  whole  head  sick,  and  the  whole 
heart  foint,  asks  them  for  medicine,  they  give  him  a  poi- 
son ;  lest  they  should  administer  a  cup  of  tremblin  n:  for  the 
waters  of  salvation  ;  and,  as  the  children  cry  for  br  3ad,  they 
should  give  them  a  stone." 

Guardians  of  our  youth,  instructers  of  our  manhood, 
guides  of  our  immortal  spirits,  remember  in  whose  places 
you  stand,  and  zchose  children  cry  to  you  for  the  bread  of 
life.  Our  Fathers,  whatever  faults  or  foibles  may  have 
clung  to  them,  were  distinct,  full,  and  fearless  in  the 
avowal  of  their  religious  opinions.  Those  opinions  they 
fondly  cherished,  distinctly  expressed,  and  boldly  defend- 
ed, yes,  with  the  faggot  and  the  sword  before  them. 
Hither  they  came,  not  to  conceal,  but  that,  unmolested, 
tTiey  might  enjoy  those  opinions,  and  teach  their  children 
the  fear  of  the  Lord,  and  the  distinct  truths  of  his  revealed 
laill.  They  taught  their  children  something  more  than 
Mahomet,  or  Lord  Herbert,  or  even  Moses  taught ;  they 
taught  some  doctrines  besides  the  facts  (questioned  by 
none  called  Christian,  or  even  Mahometan)  that  there  is 
one  God  and  a  future  life,  and  that  Jesus  is  a  divinely 
appointed  instrucler.  They  openly  and  fully  taught  what 
they  understood  and  believed  Christ  revealed  in  regard  to 
his  own  person,  character,  offices  and  object ;  in  regard 
to  the  spirituality,  perpetuity,  and  sanctions  of  the  divine 
law  ;  in  regard  to  a  future  judgment  and  the  final  destiny 
of  man  ;  in  regard  to  the  ground  of  man' s  justif  cation,  and 
the  conditions  he  must  fulfil  in  order  to  divine  accept- 
ance  and  final  approbation.      On  these  subjects  of  mo- 


86 

mentous  interest,  there  was  no  necessity  of  questioning, 
and  cross-questioning,  and  almost  putting  them  to  the 
torture,  to  discover  their  opinions.  They  felt  it  to  be 
their  duty,  their  high  honor,  their  ennobling  privilege, 
to  let  their  light  shine.  They  did  not  believe  all  opinions 
either  innocent,  or  equally  valuable.  They  believed  that 
truth  was  light,  and  that  error  was  darkness.  They  be- 
lieved Unitarianism  to  be  dangerous  error,  and  Orthodoxy 
to  be  saving  truth.  True,  too  true  it  is,  where  first  this 
light  was  kindled,  now  is  portentous  darkness.  But  the 
fire  from  the  altar  of  God,  brought  hither  by  sacred  hands, 
has  not  gone  out.  It  has  been  kindled  up  on  other  can- 
dlesticks, and  is  now  bursting  forth  on  the  right  hand  and 
on  the  left,  the  joy  of  "  the  saints  "  and  the  terror  of  those 
that  know  not  God. 

If  our  Fathers'  creed  were  erroneous,  rectify  it.  Do 
not  believe,  merely  because  they  believed.  Such  a  faith 
none  would  more  heartily  have  deplored  than  the  Cottons, 
and  Nortons,  and  Wilsons  of  New  England's  earlier  days. 
Scholars  they  were,  that  would  yield  to  few  or  none  of 
their  successors.  In  acuteness  of  intellect,  classical  at- 
tainment, and  logical  precision,  the  Norton,  who,  two 
centuries  past,  enlightened  New  England  by  his  learning, 
and  enlivened  it  with  his  piety,  need  not  shrink  from  a 
comparison  with  him,  who  now  darkens  it  with  learned 
doubts  and  logical  inaccuracy.  A  faith,  springing  from 
examination  and  from  a  love  of  the  truth,  was  what  those 
men,  who  first  occupied  Boston  pulpits,  possessed  ;  and 
prayed  and  labored  that  others,  their  successors,  might 
evermore  possess.  Whether  "  their  understandings  were 
so  debased,  their  moral  sentiments  so  brutified,"  whether 
they  possessed  "  sense  or  spirit,  or  knowledge  of  right  and 
wrong,  enough"  to  distinguish  between  "  a  Calvinistic 
God  and  the  Prince  of  Hell,"  let  their  children  decide. 

Still  we  are  not  called  upon  to  believe,  merely  because 


87 

our  Puntan  Fathers  believed.  Far  higher  is  the  obliga- 
tion of  our  faith.  The  ever  living  Jehovah,  our  maker 
and  our  judge,  and  not  our  departed  ancestors,  has  laid 
us  under  obligations,  which  we  cannot  shake  off,  to  know 
and  believe  the  truth.  If  the  Bible  be  a  fable,  we  are  un- 
der obligation  to  the  God  who  gave  us  reason,  to  reject  it. 
If  Orthodoxy  be  a  wrong  interpretation  of  that  sacred 
volume,  let  those  who  know  this  interpretation  to  be 
wrong,  reject  this  interpretation  ;  but  let  them  give  in  its 
stead  the  right  interpretation,  fully ,  distinctly.  Professing 
to  believe  the  Bible  to  contain  a  revelation  from  heaven, 
can  you  so  impugn  the  character  of  its  author,  as  to  sup- 
pose he  has  given  us  an  enigmatical  book  to  tantalize  us  ? 
Tell  us,  then ,  fearlessly  and  fully ,  what  you  believe  and 
why  you  believe  it ;  ichat  you  disbelieve  and  why  you  dis- 
believe it.  Be  at  least  as  frank  as  Dr.  Priestley  and  Mr, 
Belsham,  "  the  most  illustrious  advocates  of  English  Uni- 
tarianism."  Do  not  fear  the  reproach  of  a  name.  If 
Universalism  be  true,  glory  in  the  term  Universalist.  Sin- 
gularity is  not  a  reproach,  it  may  be  an  honor ;  it  is  not  a 
fault,  it  may  be  a  virtue.  Galileo  and  Columbus  were 
once  ridiculed  for  their  opinions.  Who  ridicules  them 
now  ?  The  Huguenots,  Methodists,  and  Puritans,  by  the 
excellence  and  sanctity  of  their  lives,  have  rendered 
honorable,  epithets  not  so  intended.*  Liberal  Christians 
surely,  will  not  shrink  from  the  honorable  task  of  enlight- 
ening a  benighted  community.  Even  if  you  are  to  perish 
in  the  attempt,  fear  not.  Whose  fall  would  be  more 
glorious  than  that  of  the  martyr  of  truth?  Whose  reward 
more  certain  ?     Cranmer  and   Latimer  and  Ridley,  those 

*  I  venture  to  predict  that,  before  this  century  closes,  "  the  mum- 
mers "  of  Geneva  will  be  a  more  honorable  distinction  tliroughout 
Europe,  than  the  strange  misnomer,  which  the  Venerable  Company 
wish  to  attach  to  themselves,  Evangeliques  Reformes.  It  is  charac- 
teristic of  Unitarianism,  in  all  latitudes,  to  be  exceedingly  solicitous 
of  "  a  good  name."  This,  like  fame,  followed,  is  lost ;  deserved,  but 
disregarded,  is  secured. 


88 

worthies  of  the  English  Church,  did  not  shrink  from  a 
chariot  of  flame  to  bear  them  home  to  glory. 

If  Unitarianism  be,  as  its  advocates  aver,  a  serene  and 
lofty  eminence,  on  which  the  human  mind,  liberated  from 
error,  "redeemed,  regenerated  and  disenthralled,"  walks 
abroad  in  the  image  of  its  Maker,  in  the  conscious  dignity 
of  an  immortal  and  purified  intelligence, 

Despicere  unde  queat  alios,  passimque  videre 

Errantes, 

with  outstretched  hand  and  suppliant  voice,  we  earnestly 
entreat  admission  to  this  light,  to  be  elevated  to  this 
summit.  We  think  the  optic  nerve  of  our  moral  eye  can 
bear  any  truth,  which  is  of  so  pure  and  perfect  a  nature. 
We  desire  to  put  an  instant  termination  to  our  pupilage, 
to  be  held  under  Calvinistic  bondage  no  longer.  Our 
minority  we  wish  ended  at  once.  We  will  assume  "  the 
manly  gown  "  forthwith,  if  it  can  thus  be  afforded  from 
the  Unitarian  wardrobe.  Surely  Unitarians  will  not  im- 
prison or  keep  back  for  their  individual  benefit,  any  part 
or  portion  of  so  inestimable  a  trust,  held,  not  for  them- 
selves, but  for  the  race.  "  Freely  ye  have  received,  freely 
give,"  is  a  plain  directory  in  circumstances  by  them  con- 
sidered so  peculiar  and  favorable.  Henceforth  we  look 
for  the  distinct  utterance  of  the  whole  truth,  for  it  is  well 
known,  not  only  to  the  bench  and  the  bar,  but  to  minds  of 
any  reflection,  that  a  part  of  the  truth  is  often  an  initruth. 

Before  closing  these  Letters,  I  have  some  important  and 
practical  questions  to  propose,  which  I  trust  you,  my  dear 
sir,  and  the  readers  generally,  will  not  think  out  of  place 
or  inopportune.  Do  you  really  believe  that  Christ  and  his 
apostles  taught  Unitarianism  1  If  so,  which  of  the  many 
theories,  embraced  under  that  most  comprehensive  name, 
did  they  teach  1  Is  Christ  "  a  fallible  and  peccable  man," 
or  higher  than  the  highest  archangel,   the   instrumental 


89 


UFIX'EUSITY 

creator  of  these  heavens  and  this  esft^th^'the  go^remor  of 
the  moral  universe,  subordinate  only  to'Uie  Eternal,  him- 
self almost  divine  ?  Or  does  he  occupy  an  intcrmeiliate 
place  between  these  vast  extremes?  Did  Christ,  as  Lo- 
gos, exist  "  with  the  Father  before  the  world  was"? 
Was  he  supernaturally  begotten  of  the  Virgin  Mary,  or  is 
this  "  a  fiction  of  oriental  mythology  "?*  Had  Christ,  in 
any  view  of  his  character,  a  proper  personal  pre-existence 
before  he  was  born  at  Bethlehem?  If  he  had,  is  Christ 
merely  a  man  ?  If  he  had  not,  how  was  he  "  with  the 
Father  before  the  world  was  "1  How  was  he  **  the  root  of 
David"?  How  "did  God  create  the  worlds  by  him "? 
What  did  Christ  and  the  apostles  teach  as  to  man's  native 
character  ?  What  is  regeneration  ?  What  is  the  ever- 
lasting state  of  the  finally  impenitent  ?  Or,  in  other 
words,  what  is  the  condition  of  those  impenitent  at  the  day 
of  judgment  ?  Is  there  an  endless  hell  for  those  on  the  left 
hand,  as  surely,  as  there  is  an  endless  heaven  for  those  on 
the  right  1  Will  those  who  go  away  into  everlasting  pun- 
ishment "  with  the  devil  and  his  angels,"  return  to  purity 
and  to  blessedness  ? — These  questions,  though  often  pro- 
posed, cannot  be  too  often  considered  by  those,  who  will 
ere  long,  and  may  shortly,  be  summoned  hence  to  return 
no  more,  but  to  hear  from  the  lips  of  their  Judge  the  wel- 
come invitation  *'  come,  ye  blessed,"  or  the  irreversible 
doom,  "depart,  ye  cursed." 

I  assume,  in  the  following  questions,  as  an  indisputable 
fact,  that  to  reason  from  moral  effects  to  moral  causes,  is 
a  legitimate  mode  of  ratiocination.  I  knov/  full  well  that 
it  is  sometimes  a  delicate  process,  and  requires  a  skilful 
hand.  This  is  not  the  place  to  enter  into  a  consideration 
of  the  qualifications,  distinctions  and  limitations  requisite 

*  May  we  be  permitted  to  ask  the  Unitarian  biblical  critic!,  what 
part  of  the  introduction  of  Matthew  and  Luke's  gospels  they  receive, 
and  what  part  they  reject  ? 

8 


90 

to  the  proper  understanding  of  this  whole  subject.  Nor 
is  it  at  all  necessary.  Broad,  palpable,  blazing  distinc- 
tions often  force  a  reluctant  acknowledgment  from  un- 
willing prejudice  itself  A  man,  having  the  sense  of  sight, 
with  his  eyes  open,  unbandaged,  unobstructed,  cannot 
easily  mistake  the  brightness  of  uneclipsed  noonday  for 
the  darkness  of  midnight. 

I  ask,  then,  has  Unitarianism  in  any  shape,  within  the 
last  three  hundred  years,  either  broken  off  from  the  Ro- 
man Catholic  church,  or  christianized  a  before  unchris- 
tian people  ?  Has  not  Unitarianism  invariably  come  in 
after  reformation — after  Orthodoxy  ?  Has  it,  for  that  pc- 
7'iod,  taken  the  lead  in  any  one  great  movement  for  the  re- 
formation of  the  world?  Bat  is  it  so,  that  real,  primitive, 
purified  Christianity,  the  Christianity  of  Paul  and  Peter, 
is  so  backward  and  diffident,  that  it  only  comes  in  as  a 
sedative  to  prevent  an  over-zealous  activity  in  the  friends 
of  man  ?  a  sort  of  make-weight  in  the  moral  scales  ?  or, 
in  other  words,  follows  in  the  rear  of  an  *'  exclusive," 
hot-headed,  intolerant  Orthodoxy  ? 

Are  these  things  so  ?  Is  the  religion  of  Christ  in  its 
purity,  of  secondary  and  subsidiary  power  only  in  revolu- 
tionising the  world,  and  purifying,  and  elevating,  and 
sanctifying  it  ?  It  was  not  so  of  old.  Either  Christi- 
pinity  has  lost  its  primitive  energies,  or  Unitarianism  is 
not  Christianity.  But  the  salt  of  heaven  has  not  lost  its 
Favour.  Declensions  in  Orthodox  Churches  are  no  new 
thing,  from  the  Seven  Churches  of  Asia,  to  the  Genevan 
and  the  Boston  Churches.  Christianity  in  its  purity,  is 
mighty.  Weak  in  numbers,  wealth,  and  intellect,  up- 
held only  by  those  accounted  *'  the  filth  and  the  off-scour- 
ing of  all  things,"  it  is  still  irresistible  in  power,  for  by 
prayer  and  faith,  it  takes  hold  on  the  arm  of  Omnipo- 
tence, and  the  world  feels  its  influence.  It  conceives,  at- 
tempts, accomplishes,  great  things.     When  did  Unitarian- 


91 

ism  ot'iginate  Bible,  Tract,  Education,  Missionary,  Sab- 
bath school.  Bethel,  or  Prison  Discipline  Societies  ?  All 
these  originated  in  England  and  America  among  "  the 
saints,"  as  they  are  deridingly  called  in  tiie  former  coun- 
try, and  here  too  by  a  preacher  of  some  note,  and,  what 
is  more,  they  are  so  called  in  the  Bible.  Now  if  "  the 
saints  of  the  Most  High  God,"  might  naturally  be  sup- 
posed to  take  a  leading  interest  in  building  up  the  moral 
kingdom  of  God,  it  is  only  a  question  of  fact,  as  to  whom 
those  saints  are,  who  lead  in  the  benevolent  Christian  ef- 
forts of  the  day  ?  Bible  societies,  however  they  may  have 
originated,  unite  now  all  among  us  who  profess  to  believe 
the  scriptures  to  be  from  God.  But  look  at  missionary  so- 
cieties. All  the  principal  denominations,  holding  the  head 
Christ  Jesus,  the  Lord  of  glory,  crucified  for  sinful  man, 
have  established  and  are  extending  their  missions.  Not  only 
Orthodox  Congregationalists  and  Presbyterians,  but  the 
Baptists,  Methodists,  Episcopalians,  all  are  active  to  make 
known  a  Saviour's  dying  love,  and  to  extend  his  kingdom. 
What  have  all  the  preaching,  and  writing,  and  discussion 
of  Unitarians  amounted  to  on  this  subject,  in  Boston  ?  Is 
there  a  single  Unitarian  clergyman  found  ready  to  go  to 
Calcutta,  with  its  numerous  Christian  population  and  civi- 
lized society  1  Is  there  one  that  will  quit  his  home  and 
his  fire-side,  to  lend  a  helping  hand  to  the  great  oriental 
philosopher,  Rammohun  Roy,  in  his  attempt  to  destroy 
paganism,  and  introduce  pure  Christianity  ?  Are  Unita- 
rian ministers  in  such  demand  at  home,  that  not  one  can 
be  spared  ?  Is  there  no  call  for  Orthodox  clergymen 
from  the  north  and  the  south,  from  the  east  and  the  west  ? 
Are  Unitarians  ignorant  of  the  first  principle  of  Orthodox 
benevolence,  ^'  there  is  that  scattereth,  and  yet  increas- 
eth ;  and  there  is  that  withholdeth  more  than  is  meet, 
but  it  tendeth  to  poverty  "  ?  Who  will  go  to  New  Hol- 
land, to  Borneo,  to  Ava  1     Who  will  take  up  his  shivering 


92 

abode  among  the  Greenlanders  ?  Who  will  brave  the 
burning  sun  of  the  tropics,  and  the  scorching  sands  of 
Africa  ?  Who  will  cast  from  him  the  recollections  of 
civilized  life,  for  the  cabin  of  the  Hottentot ;  the  charms 
of  elegant  society,  and  the  attractions  of  literature  and 
cultivated  taste,  for  the  wigwam  of  the  Osage  or  the 
Choctaw  ?  Who  will  give  up  the  security  of  Boston,  for  a 
dungeon  in  Avaorin  Beyroot?  If  missionaries  are  to  go 
to  such  places,  thus  putting  in  jeopardy  their  lives,  not 
knowing  what  things  shall  befall  them,  apprehensive  of 
bonds  and  imprisonment,  yet  not  counting  their  lives  dear 
to  them,  so  that  they  may  win  Christ  and  be  found  in  him, 
so  that  his  name  may  be  preached  to  every  creature,  they 
must  be  sought  at  Andover  and  not  at  Cambridge  ;  among 
the  Moravians,  the  Baptists,  the  Methodists,  or  Evangeli- 
cal Churchmen,  but  never,  no,  never,  among  Unitarians. 
Will  you  explain  this  in  connexion  with  the  parting  com- 
mand of  Christ  1  Surely  the  Unitarians  of  the  United 
States,  if  not  as  numerous,  are  at  least  as  able  to  support 
missionaries  as  the  Moravians.  What  cultivated  rational 
divine  ever  sold  himself  into  slavery,  that  he  might  have 
the  opportunity  of  preaching  Christ  to  his  fellow  man,  as 
some  Wesleyan  Methodists  have  done  in  the  West  Indies? 
These  are  the  men  "  who  count  all  things  but  loss,"  for 
the  excellency  of  the  knowledge  of  Christ  Jesus  their 
Lord.  Which  now  is  the  true  original  gospel,  published 
by  Christ  and  his  apostles,  that  which  originates  and  sus- 
tains such  efforts,  or  that  which  looks  coldly  on,  finds 
fault  if  there  happen  to  be  something  either  faulty  or 
thought  to  be  so,  attempts  to  do  something  itself,  but  is 
paralysed  in  its  first  step,  and,  with  all  its  boasted  wealth, 
and  numbers,  and  talent,  and  disinterested  generosity,  in 
Europe  and  Asia  and  America  combined,  can  only  sup- 
port one  missionary  on  heathen   ground,  and  he,  an  indi- 


93 

vidual  at  first  seKt  forth  by  the  Orthodox  themselves?    The 
first  Unitarian  missionary  remains  yet  to  be  sent  out.* 

Pause  now,  in  view  of  this  matter-of-fact  mode  of  inqui- 
ry as  to  the  original,  heaven-published  gospel.  Unitari- 
anism,  in  none  of  its  protean  shapes,  still  less  in  its  So- 
cinian  or  Humanitarian  form,  ever  went  forth  to  civilize 
and  christianize  the  heathen.  In  books  and  theory,  they 
may  speculate  what  they  will  about  the  simplicity  of  their 
faith,  and  the  efficiency  of  truth  in  the  Unitarian  form, 
but  facts,  facts,  are  wanted  to  substantiate  theory,  and 
verify  assertion.  The  Orthodox  faith  is  here  based  on 
the  surest  philosophy,  supported  by  indisputable  facts,  a 
species  of  irrefragable  argument.  Let  the  islands  of  the 
Pacific,  as  described  by  Cook  and  by  intelligent  impartial 
voyagers  now,  bear  testimony  to  this.  Unitarians  may 
imagine  and  propose  the  most  scientific  mission,  with  all 
the  apparatus  of  Greenwich,  if  they  please  ;  they  may 
have  the  telescope  of  Herschel  and  a  solar  miscroscope ; 
they  may  add  to  these  the  alembics,  deflagrators,  and  re- 
torts of  Davy ;  and  what  will  it  all  amount  to  ?  The 
Gospel  of  Christ  is  foolishness  to  man,  yet  it  is  mighty 
through  God.  Here  is  the  Unitarian  error.  They  over- 
look the  agent,  who  gives  efficiency  to  means,  and  blesses, 
not  the  wisdom  of  words,  but  the  words  of  heavenly  wis- 
dom. "  Not  by  might,  nor  by  power,  but  by  my  Spirit 
saith  the  Lord."  Witness  Brainerd,  with  his  Bible  only, 
preaching,  through  an  ignorant  Indian  interpreter,  to  the 
savages,  and  say,  would  the  National  Institute,  with  all 
their  philosophical  apparatus,  have  brought  these  stoics  of 
the  woods  to  weep  and  cry  out  *'  what  shall  we  do  to  be 
saved  V^  Those  who,  unlike  "  the  English  traveller," 
wish  to  philosophize   deeply ,  as  to  the  cause  of  the  revi- 

*  If,  according  to  a  recent  Unitarian  publication,  "  the  aposlle 
Paul "  was  "  a  Unitarian,"  he  remains  to  this  day  not  only  without  an 
equal,  but  without  a  successor. 

8* 


94 

vals  of  religion  in  America^  would  find  here  matter  for 
solemn  thought.  Was  it  Brainerd^  or  the  Spirit  of  God 
attending  Brainerd's  ministrations,  that  humbled  the 
haughty  savage,  and  caused  the  fearless  lords  of  the  crea- 
tion to  weep  for  their  sins,^  and  to  cry  to  the  Lamb  of  God 
to  wash  away  their  sins,  and  save  their  souls  1  Let  ra- 
tional Christianity  answer  this. 

But,  perhaps,  you  will  tell  me.  Unitarians  have  now  their 
missionary  society.  True,  they  have,  and  their  tract  soci- 
ety also.  And  what  think  you  they  will  accomplish?  Is  it 
man  or  God,  that  will  convert  the  world  %  If  God  is  to  do 
this  great  work,  man  is  no  doubt  to  be  the  instrument. 
How  then  is  man  to  effect  it  ?  Preaching,  the  press,  edu- 
cation will  do  much.  But  is  not  the  secret  of  missionary 
effort  and  success  to  be  found  in  a  spirit  of  prayer  1 
Throughout  the  world^  on  the  first  Monday  of  every  month 
those  that  worship  Christ  and  sing  hymns  to  him,  "  Quasi 
Deo,"  unite  to  pray  to  him,  the  Lord  of  the  harvest,  that  he 
would  send  forth  more  laborers  into  his  vineyard,  and  gather 
in  speedily  an  abundant  harvest.  Is  there  any  such  thing 
in  existence,^  or  was  it  ever  conceived  by  any  of  the  party, 
to  establish  a  Unitarian  monthly  concert  of  prayer  ?  If 
God  be  a  hearer  of  prayer  and  "  will  be  inquired  of"  as 
to  the  spiritual  blessings  he  bestows,  and  Unitarianism  be 
o^f  a  more  elevated,  purer  and  more  spiritual  nature  than 
the  Evangelical  faith,  is  it  not  strange  beyond  the  bounds 
of  ordinary  strangeness,  that  the  one  class  are  thus  united, 
persevering,  importunate  in  prayer,  while  the  other  class 
think  or  act  as  though  they  thought  a  passing  Sabbath 
day's  remembrance  quite  sufficient  ? 

This  ungodly  world,  my  dear  sir,  is  not  to  be  brought 
back  to  allegiance  to  God  by  smooth  periods,  nor  gentle 
names,  nor  soft,  endearing  epithets,  nor  by  professions  of 
an  enlarged  (but  undiscriminating)  charity.  The  time  has 
come  when  the  Spirit  of  God  is  lifting  up  a  standard  here, 


95 

on  the  spot  early  trod  by  the  Pilgrims,  watered  by  their 
tears,  hallowed  by  their  prayers,  and  still  "  sacred  to  their 
memory."  Abroad,  the  vials  of  God's  wrath  would  seem 
about  to  be  emptied  on  nominal  and  anti-christian  powers. 
The  false  prophet  trembles  on  his  throne ;  Babylon  is 
shaken  ;  a  mighty  angel  is  flying  through  the  heavens, 
preaching  the  gospel  to  all  people,  "  the  kingdoms  of 
this  world  are  about  to  become  the  kingdom  of  our  Lord 
and  of  his  Christ."  What  has  Unitarianism  to  do  with 
these  great  events  ?  It  has  had  nothing  to  do  with  them,  it 
will  have  nothing  to  do  with  them.  It  will  itself  soon  pass 
away,  and  leave  not  a  wreck,  not  a  memento,  behind. 

The  wheel  of  the  divine  government  is  rolling  forward 
the  divine  purposes.  The  simple  question  for  each  one 
to  consider  is,  will  you  lend  your  feeble  aid  in  impelling 
it  forward,  or  oppose  its  progress,  and  be  crushed  beneath 
its  weight  ?  Unitarianism  is  not  the  faith  once  delivered 
to  the  saints.  Its  foundation  is  rotten.  There  is  a  stone, 
a  tried  stone,  rejected  of  old  bi/  the  builders^  which  will 
afford  a  sure  foundation.  Fly  to  that  before  it  be  too  late. 
Based  on  the  rock  of  ages,  you  may  resemble  Knox, 
'*  who  feared  not  the  face  of  clay ;"  with  Luther  you  may 
go  forth  to  any  duty,  "  though  the  devils  be  as  thick  as 
the  tiles  upon  the  houses ;"  "fearing  God,  you  need  have 
no  other  fear." 


NOTES. 


NOTE  A.  Page  9. 
When,  or  by  whom,  this  scion  was  inserted  into  the  Jewish  stock, 
the  writer  does  not  say.  If  he  can  fix  the  age  and  the  author  of  the 
book  of  Job,  and  the  country  he  inhabited,  he  will  have  taken 
one  and  the  tirst  step,  which  is  always  the  most  difficult,  towards  the 
determination.  If,  with  one  class  of  critics,  we  assign  this  book  to 
Moses,  or  with  another  class,  we  date  it  still  farther  back  in  the  pa- 
triarchal age,  in  either  case  it  is  the  oldest  record  of  human  opinion ; 
and,  adopted  into  the  Jewish  canon  and  sanctioned  by  Christ  and 
his  apostles,  stands  forth  as  the  first  revealed  expression  of  divine 
truth.  Its  date  is  thus,  from  six  hundred  to  a  thousand  years  anterior 
to  the  period  assigned  to  Homer  by  any  of  the  classical  critics.  But 
diabolical  existence  and  agency  are  asserted  and  reiterated,  not  in  the 
poetical,  but  in  the  historical  parts  of  this  book.  Was  it  then  "  care- 
lessness or  hardihood  "  that  asserted  as  an  undeniable  fact,  that  "  this 
notion  was  grafted  on  the  purity  of  the  Jewish  faith  from  the  fictions 
of  oriental  mythology"  ?  "  Did  not  the  gentleman  know,  that  theo- 
logians, inferior  to  none  in  exact  learning,  deep  research,  ardent  piet}'', 
and  studious  attention  to  the  word  of  God,"  have  discovered,  in  this 
first  remaining  production  of  the  human  mind,  and  original  revela- 
tion of  divine  truth,  a  clear  and  distinct  recognition  of  diabolical 
agency  ?  Have  they  not  traced  this  notion  up  to  the  very  fountain 
of  truth,  to  the  light  of  heaven,  to  the  inspiration  of  the  Almighty? 
Did  he  not  know  that  they  have  seen  this  notion,  not  merely  en- 
grafted into  the  purity  of  the  Jewish,  but  ingrained  and  interwoven 
with  the  whole  system  of  the  Christian,  faith  ?  How  then  could  he 
assume,  with  such  roundness  of  period,  and  fearlessness  of  conse- 
quence, (shall  I  add,  disregard  of  fact  7)  that  this  notion,  presented 
to  human  contemplation  in  the  first  written  record  extant,  and  under 
the  authoritative  sanction  of  inspiration,  was  "  a  fiction  of  oriental 
mythology"?  in  other  words,  a  dream,  a  fancy,  an  untruth?  Need 
we  be  at  a  loss  to  know  "  this  gentleman's  views  of  the  sacred  vol- 


93  1 

urae  "?     All  acknowledge  the  writer  of  the  book  of  Job  to  have  been  * 

a  genius  of  the  loftiest  order,  a  sun  of  surpassing  brilliancy,  before 
which  the  lights,  greater  and  less,  of  Grecian  and  Roman  glory, 
fade  away  into  dimness,  or  totally  disappear.  Why,  then,  are  we 
constrained  to  imagine  him,  so  meagre  in  imagination,  so  jejune  in 
invention,  so  derelict  of  inspiration,  that  in  order  to  produce  this  book, 
he  had  recourse  to  fabulous  legends,  and  unreal  phantasies  ?  Where 
is  the  evidence  of  the  existence,  and  what  v/as  the  character  of  these 
fictions  ?  Is  there  any  Idunisean  history,  any  Assyrian  roll,  any  Ara- 
bian chronicle  extant,  from  which  to  hazard  a  conjecture  on  these 
points  ?  Neither  Egypt  nor  Babylon  affords  a  hieroglyphick,  or 
character,  by  which  to  pierce  the  darkness  that  broods  over  those 
remote  ages.  Be  it  known,  that  the  first  period  of  authentic  profane 
history  commences  at  least  seven  hundred  years  subsequent  to  the 
latest  date  assigned,  with  any  considerable  degree  of  probability,  to  the 
author  of  this  book.  Is  Herodotus  to  give  evidence  in  this  case  ? 
W^hat  did  he  know,  or  could  he  know,  upon  the  subject  ?  Would 
you  admit  Tacitus  and  Suetonius  to  be  credible  historians  in  regard  to 
the  belief  and  the  practices  of  even  contemporary  Jews  ?  What  then 
could  a  Grecian  historian,  removed  a  thousand  miles  in  space,  and  a 
thousand  years  in  time,  know  of  that  remote  age  and  distant  country  ? 
Evidently,  nothing.  Suppose  we  could  summon  Sanchoniathon  and 
Manetho,  Berosus  and  Abydenus,  the  Ossians  of  history,  and  put  them 
to  the  question,  what  could  they  testify  ?  Nothing,  nothing  at  all. 
Are  we  then  to  quit  "  the  sure  word  of  prophecy,"  wherein  "  holy 
men  of  old  spake  as  they  were  moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost,"  for  the 
supposititious  imaginings  of  a  soi-disant  rational  Christianity  ?  Is 
"  pure  reason,"  on  a  s\ih]eci  wholly  and  forever  beyond  its  unassist- 
ed grasp,  of  paramount  authority  to  recorded  fact  and  inspired  de- 
cision ? 

Following  out  the  assumptions  of  the  reviewer,  we  shall  soon  find 
ourselves  compelled  to  adopt  the  rationalism  of  Rohr,  Wegscheider, 
and  their  school ;  and  if  we  pretend  to  receive  the  scriptures,  it  will 
be  as  a  collection  of  oriental  fictions,  an  assemblage  of  traditionary 
tenets  and  mythological  fancies,  by  the  aid  of  which,  so  far  as  they 
correspond  with  eyiUghtened  reason,  we  may  elaborate  a  system  of 
"  divine  truth."  "  Theologians,  inferior  to  none  in  various  and  exact 
learning,  deep  research,  studious  attention  to  the  word  of  God,  and  " 
(would  it  not  be  uncharitable  not  to  add  ?)  "  ardent  piety,"  have  been 
unable  to  discover  any  thing  more  than  such  tenets  and  such  fancies  in 
the  volume  of  inspiration.  The  sons  of  the  Pilgrims  are  not  yet  so 
bereft  of  reason  as  to  renounce  revelation,  and  take  in  its  place,  they 


99 

know  not  wliat,  dignifieJ,  though  it  he,  with  the  name  of  "  rational 

Christianity." 

Before  this  writer  again  decide?  with  such  oracular  authority,  it  may 
serve  to  refresh  his  memory  and  shape  his  periods,  to  review  his 
chronological  tables.  He  might  consult  Niebuhr  to  learn  Avhat 
authority  is  attributed  by  the  learned  to  the  first  five  centuries  of  Ro- 
man history.  How  much  in  Grecian  history,  previous  to  the  first 
Olympiad,  is  not  fabulous  ?  Eusebius,  in  his  Chronicon,  shows,  ac- 
cording to  the  chronology  of  the  heathen  historians  just  mentioned, 
whose  works,  some  fragments  excepted,  have  long  since  perished, 
and  also  of  Dionysius  of  Halicarnassus,  and  Diodorus  Siculus,  that 
Moses  lived  prior  to  the  worship  of  Jupiter,  to  the  birth  of  Latona, 
of  Bacchus,  Apollo,  and  most  of  the  heathen  deities,  to  the  flood  of 
Deucalion,  to  the  foil  of •  Phaeton  ;  and  centuries  prior  to  the  first 
poets,  philosophers,  and  historians  of  Greece.  The  first  Olympiad 
was  instituted  in  honor  of  Jupiter,  B.  C.  776.  Moses  was  eighty 
years  of  age  when  he  led  the  children  of  Israel  out  of  Egypt, 
B.  C.  about  1500. 


NOTE  B.  Page  13. 
The  writer  is  not  ignorant  that  "  rational  Christianity,"  carried  out 
to  its  legitimate  results,  (that  is,  pure  rationalism,)  has  denied  the 
existence  of  good  as  well  as  of  bad  angels.  Nor  does  he  see  how  a 
man  can  pretend  to  reason  upon  the  subject  and  deny  that  the  exist- 
ence of  the  latter  class  is  revealed,  and  yet  iJelieve  in  the  existence 
of  the  former.  Consistent  "  rational  criticism  must  sweep  away 
both  classes  together,  and  it  were  idle  to  deny  it.  This  has  been  the 
result,  where  liberal  minds  have  been  unlaced  fiom  creeds,  unfettered 
by  authoiitv,  and  at  liberty  to  speak  out  their  undisguised  sentiments, 
fearless  of  offending  popular  opinion.  "  Theologians,  inferior  to 
none  in"  extent  of  information  and  compass  of  research,  profoundly 
versed  in  the  original  languages  of  the  scriptures  and  the  kindred 
dialects,  and  loaded  with  stores  of  classical  and  oriental  learning,  men 
"  studious  of  nature"  in  her  permanent  and  her  ever-varying  forms, 
have  blotted  out,  with  unsparing  hand,  every  vestige  of  angelic  exist- 
ence from  the  sacred  page.  This  is  consistent  inconsistency,  an 
honor,  to  which  the  American  supporters  of  a  kindred  system  cannot 
yet  lay  claim.  Should  the  descent  of  opinion,  however,  be  as  rapid 
for  the  next  ten  years  as  during  the  ten  years  past,  (not  to  speak  of 
an  accelerated  velocity,)  it  may  be  questioned  whether  "  the  lowest 


100 

depth"  of  German  rationalism  will  be  more  than  a  step  to  "  the  deep- 
er still"  of  American  rational  Christianity.  A  new  illustration,  it  is  to 
be  feared,  is  about  to  be  given  to  the  adage,  corruptio  optirni  pessima. 
If  this  be  thought  severe,  let  the  reader  remember  that  in  1815,  the 
views  of  the  atonement  given  by  Butler,  in  his  Analogj%  were  said  by 
Dr.  Channing,  to  be  as  generally  received  by  the  Unitarian  clergy  as 
any  others  ;  and  that  ten  years  afterwards,  "  a  central  gallows"  is 
erected,  by  which  to  hold  up  those  views  to  scorn  and  detestation. 
A  descent,  equally  rapid,  cannot  be  paralleled  in  Germany,  from  1750 
to  the  present  moment.  With  Dr.  Priestley,  this  divine,  accom- 
plished and  eloquent  though  he  be,  may  well  say,  •'  I  do  not  know 
where  my  creed  will  be  fixed."  The  remark  of  the  satirist,  nemo  re- 
pente  fuit  turpissimus,  can  apply  only  to  manners,  not  to  sentiments. 


NOTE  C.    Page  23. 

What  American  Unitarian  interpreters  suppose  the  three  evange- 
lists to  mean  by  their  narratives  of  "  the  temptation,"  remains  to  be 
seen.  They  are  of  age,  and  can  speak  for  themselves.  It  is  not 
probable  that  any  of  them  are  yet  ready,  openly,  to  take  the  ground 
of  Professor  Schleiermacher,  a  name,  though  unknown  here,  of  great 
learning,  and  of  great  authority  throughout  Prussia  and  all  Germany. 
He  thinks  "  the  most  natural  explanation  of  the  temptation  is,  that  it 
is  a  parable,  delivered  by  Christ  to  his  disciples,  which  might  easily 
have  been  misunderstood  historically,  and  yet  as  easily,  notwith- 
standing this  misconstruction,  pass  through  a  great  number  of  hands." 
Putting  this  into  intelligible  English,  it  reads  thus,  the  disciples,  each 
and  all,  misunderstood  Christ,  and  have  perpetuated  their  miscon- 
ception in  a  volume  said  to  he  inspired.  In  this  "  most  natural" 
opinion,  we  see  the  reverence  felt  for  the  scriptures  by  this  learned 
and  most  rational  member  of  the  German  Lutheran  Church.  "  He 
avails  himself,"  as  another  distinguished  German  writer  has  said  in 
his  reply  to  Rose,  "  of  the  Established  Ecclesiastical  System,  as,  in 
some  way  or  other,  the  envelope  of  his  philosophical  system." 

All  this  may  be  disclaimed  by  American  rational  inquirers,  as 
irrelevant.  But  how  can  we  know  what  is  considered  rational  in 
Boston,  if  the  advocates  of  rational  inquiry  here,  will  maintain  an 
astringent  silence  on  such  topics,  but  by  learning  what  is  thought 
rational  by  Unitarians,  where  the  lips  are  unclosed,  and  communi- 
cation of  opinion  is  free  and  unrestrained  ?  Whence  is  it,  that  in  a 
monarchy,  and  with  an  established  religion,  the  principal  writers  are 


101 

frank,  undisguised,  and  fearless  in  the  expression  of  their  belief  and 
of  their  disbelief,  and  of  their  reasons,  vvhile,  in  this  Republic,  with  no 
religious  establishment  to  fetter  thought,  or  the  utterance  of  thought, 
this  birthplace  and  home  of  free  opinion  and  free  expression,  the 
opinions  of  a  large  class  of  professedly  religious  teachers  should  be 
known  only  as  they  are  wormed  out  ?  How  loud  a  panegyric  does 
Unitarian  silence  undesignedly  pronounce  upon  the  character  and  the 
influence  of  our  Puritan  Fathers  ? 

The  wild  speculations  of  continental  dreamers  the  Christian  Disci- 
ple and  the  Christian  Examiner  have  often  reprobated.  There  is 
allowed  to  be  no  blood-relationship,  no  fellow-feeling  between  the 
professors  of  Gottingen  and  of  Cambridge  ;  while  those  of  Andover 
are  cordial  fellow-laborers  with  those  of  Tubingen,  and,  recently,  with 
those  of  Berlin.  Insular  writers,  however,  the  good  sound  common- 
sense  writers  of  England,  are  not  thus  recklessly  thrown  to  the  winds. 
True,  the  headlong  Priestley,  the  daring  Belsham,  and  even  the  Im- 
proved Version,  embodying  as  it  does,  the  results  of  Unitarian  learning 
and  the  inventions  of  "  rational "  ingenuity,  are  rather  ungratefully  re- 
garded as  questionable  coadjutors,  ^'usf  yet.  But  wliat  shall  we  say  of 
Cappe,  the  most  learned  and  the  most  critical  of  all  the  English  Unitari- 
ans, not  excepting  Wakefield,  and  far  the  most  cautious  ?  "What  shall 
we  say  of  the  Monthly  Repository,  the  accredited  organ  of  Unitarian- 
ism  in  Great  Britain,  especially  of  its  first  volumes,  when  the  writers 
were  desirous  of  "  putting  the  best  foot  foremost "  ?  Unitarians  in 
this  vicinity  have  recently  expressed  the  desire  of  drawing  closer  the 
bonds  between  them  and  their  brethren  over  the  waters.  By  looking 
into  the  Christian  Register,  it  will  be  seen,  that  the  Monthly  Reposi- 
tory is  the  Magazine  from  which  most  of  its  foreign  articles  are  taken. 
Is  it  not  fair  to  presume  that  Unitarians  here  adopt  the  same  belief  in 
regard  to  Satan,  Diabolos,  &,c.  as  their  English  brethren,  and,  more- 
over, adopt  the  same  inode  of  interpreting  these  words  in  the 
scriptures  7  The  English  critics,  with  their  characteristic  bluntness, 
speak  out  what  they  believe,  or  disbelieve,  with  considerable  fulness 
and  precision.  It  can  hardly  admit  of  a  doubt  that  their  more  wily 
younger  brethren,  will,  ere  long,  be  constrained,  either  from  self- 
respect,  or  a  compliance  with  the  reiterated  call  of  public  opinion,  ti 
take  the  same  course. 

The  following  quotations  may  serve  to  take  off  the  bandage,  al- 
ready somewhat  loosened,  from  Unitarian  eyes,  which  their  leaders 
of  their  own  accord  are  quite  unwilling  to  remove. 

Cappe,  in  his  critical  notes  on  the  temptation,  is  quite  lean  in  his 
explanation,  and  evidently  feels  himself  embarrassed.     This  is  appa- 

9 


102 

lent,  both  from  his  remarks  there,  and  when  the  same  subject  recurs 
in  his  Life  of  Christ,  which,  on  this  period,  is  for  the  most  part,  a 
repetition  of  what  he  had  said  in  his  Notes.  He  gives  us  the  most 
approved  "  rational "  interpretation  thus.  "  The  case  with  the  writer 
here,  or  with  some  one  before  him  who  first  told  the  story  or  re- 
corded it,  seems  to  have  been  this,  to  wit ;  he  was  about  to  relate 
such  things  concerning  Jesus,  as  to  the  precipitate,  and  to  any  who 
were  not  well  disposed  towards  him,  might  appear  to  be  a  blemish  on 
h;s  character,  and  not  to  consist  well  with  the  appellation,  Holy  One 
of  God.  To  preclude  such  disparaging  conceptions  concerning 
the  character  of  Jesus  ;  to  prevent  any  such  effect  of  doubts  and 
difficullies,  the  growth  of  his  own  mind,  the  result  of  impressions 
rr.ade  on  him  by  his  present  circumstances,  and  which  tended,  as  it 
might  seem,  towards  apostacy  and  unfaithfulness  ;  the  evangelist,  go- 
ing to  relate  them,  does  not  choose  to  represent  them  in  plain  naked 
language,  as  the  spontaneous  produce  of  his  thoughts,  but  rather  as 
the  suggestions  of  another.  He  avails  himself  of  an  idiom  much  in 
use  among  the  Jews,  figuratively  ascribing  to  a  being  of  evil  character, 
any  thing  in  the  person  and  circumstances  of  any  man  that  either 
was,  or  that  tended  to  what  was  deemed,  either  naturally  or  morally 
evil." 

Cappe,  in  this  explanation,  has  adopted  a  mode  of  expression  some- 
what analogous  to  that  which  he  attributes  to  the  evangelists.  He  was 
afraid  to  speak  out,  and  yet  he  was  unwilling  to  withhold,  his  opinion. 
In  plain  English,  Cappe  means  that  Christ  had  "  doubts  and  difnculties, 
the  growth  of  his  own  mind"  solely,  misgivings  as  to  the  work  on 
which  he  had  entered,  which  tended  to  apostacy  and  unfaithfulness. 
These  the  evangelist  knew  would  not, "  to  the  precipitate,"  consist  well 
v/ith  the  character  of  the  Holy  One  of  God,  They  must  in  some  way 
be  concealed  or  palliated,  or  so  expressed,  as  to  remove  the  offence 
that  would  be  felt  by  those  not  well  disposed  towards  him.  The 
evangelist  was  unwilling  to  express  the  plain  truth  in  naked  language? 
that  these  doubts  and  difficulties  were  the  spontaneous  produce  of 
Chiist's  own  thoughts,  and  so  he  avails  himself  of  the  Jewish  idiom  of 
charging  upon  Satan,  what  wholly  belongs  to  Christ  himself;  of 
cliarging  upon  the  imaginary,  fictitious  Satan,  the  doubts  and  difficul- 
ties of  the  Holy  One  of  God  ! 

I  will  make  only  a  remark  or  two,  in  passing,  on  such  an  explana- 
tion. If  I  mistake  not,  it  has  always  been  pointed  out  as  a  peculiar, 
prominent,  and  most  distinguishing  feature  in  the  evangelists,  that  they 
told,  and  were  disposed  to  tell,  the  whole,  simple,  undisguised,  naked 
truth,  for,  and  against,  their  master,  and  themselves,   unsuspicious 


103 

of  criticism,  and  fearless  of  consequences.  They  drew  no  characters. 
They  pronounced  no  eulogiunis.  They  told  the  truth,  and  left  it  to 
make  its  own  way,  under  the  God  of  truth,  believing,  or  at  least  acting 
as  though  they  believed,  that  "  unadorned,  it  was  adorned  the  most." 
Where  else  shall  we  look  for  any  fears  on  the  part  of  the  disciples, 
that  the  character  of  "  their  Lord  and  their  God  "  would  suffer  from 
the  plain  statement  of  what  he  said,  or  did,  or  thought  ?  If  Cappe's 
view  be  the  true  one,  we  must  hereafter  give  up  the  artless,  truth  - 
telling  character  of  the  evangelists,  and  believe  them  artful  and 
truth-concealing,  if  not  Jesuitical. 

But  again.  "  This  was  an  idiom  much  in  use."  What  was  this 
idiom  ?  Why,  a  general  national  behef  in  the  actual  existence  of  the 
devil  and  his  angels.  On  consulting  Cappe's  references  for  this 
idiom,  it  will  be  found  that  he  has  referred  to  passages  w^hich  prove 
this  national  belief.  Suppose  I  should  deny  that  Boston  means  a 
literal  city ;  it  is  only  an  American  idiomatic  expression,  much  in 
use  for  the  general  idea  of  residence,  and  in  proof  of  the  assertion, 
should  refer  to  New  York,  Philadelphia,  Washington,  &c.;  would  my 
logical  and  critical  abilities  be  trumpeted  forth  as  of  the  highest  order  } 
Yet  this  is  precisely  the  reasoning  of  Cappe,  who  must  be  acknowl- 
edged by  all,  as  among  the  most  intelligent,  critical,  and  cautious,  not 
to  say  icily,  of  Unitarian  writers.  It  is  the  system,  and  not  the  inan, 
which  is  answerable  for  these  absurdities.  Let  him  have  truth  on  his 
side,  and  he  would  be  irresistible.  As  it  Is,  to  those  but  partially  read 
^n  biblical  criticism,  and  who  are  predisposed  to  follow  a  learned  leader 
in  rejecting  Orthodoxy,  I  know  few  Unitarian  writers  more  able  "  to 
make  the  worse  appear  the  better  reason." 

I  am  about  to  extract  some  passages  from  the  Monthly  Repository, 
which  will  not  only  give  us  English  Unitarian  belief  (or  disbelief:) 
on  this  subject,  but  also,  which  is  of  great  importance,  the  principles 
of  interpretation  by  which  they  arrive  at  their  conclusion.  The  es- 
say, from  which  these  extracts  are  taken,  was  continued  through 
three  numbers  of  that  Magazine,  for  1809.  The  writer  begins  by 
saying,  that  the  word  diabolos,  translated  devil,  occurs  thirty-eight 
times  in  the  New  Testament,  and  proceeds  to  consider  these  cases  in 
detail.  He  does  not  advert  to  those  passages  in  which  the  word  Satan, 
tempter,  wicked  or  evil  one,  god  of  this  world,  prince  of  this  world, 
&.C.  &c.  are  used.  These  are  left  unnoticed.  However,  he  had 
enough  to  do  with  the  thirty-eight  passages.  In  some  of  these,  it  is 
admitted  on  all  hands,  this  word  is  properly  translated,  slanderer,  in 
the  common  version.     Let  us  see  how  he  treats  those  translated  devil. 

Math.  xiii.  39.  This  is  the  exp)lanation  of  the  parable  quoted  in  the 


104 

fourth  letter  under  the  third  head  of  the  second  argument.  "  In  this 
connexion,  it  may  justly  be  doubted  whether  Jesus  means  positively 
to  assert  the  existence  of  the  devil,  and  his  ascendancy  over  the 
human  mind.  It  is  far  more  probable  that  he  uses  the  phrase  in 
conformity  to  the  prevailing  notio7is  of  his  countrymen.  From  a 
parable,  nothing  can  be  inferred  but  the  doctrine  or  instruction  which 
it  is  intended  to  inculcate  ;  the  circumstances  are  to  be  overlooked, 
and  every  thing  which  is  collateral  is  to  be  considered  only  as  the  or- 
nament of  the  allegory."  The  writer  does  not  once  advert  to  the 
fact  that  this  is  not  a  parable,  but  the  interpretation  of  a  parable, 
given  by  Christ  himself,  not  to  his  countrymen  at  large,  but  to  his 
own  bosom  friends  in  their  retirement.  It  would  seem  that  a  Unita- 
rian writer,  is  under  an  almost  physical,  a  sort  of  "  absque  remedio  " 
inability  to  state  a  difficulty  fairly,  to  meet  an  argument  logically,  or 
to  translate  correctly. 

To  proceed  with  this  writer.  "  John  viii.  44.  '  Ye  are  of  your  fa- 
ther the  devil,'  &.c.  Such  is  the  influence  of  association  and  of  long 
established  habits  of  thinking,  that  it  will  not  be  easy  to  suggest  any 
interpretation  of  this  passage  different  from  the  common  one,  which 
will  not  appear  to  many  very  harsh  and  unsupported."  True. 
Header,  how  do  you  think  he  gets  over  or  round  this  difficulty  ?  Tax 
your  invention  to  the  utmost,  and  you  will  be  disappointed  at  last. 
This  writer  is  not  one  of  those,  gi-avelled  with  a  small  or  a  sizeable  dif- 
ficulty. He  thinks  it  most  natural  to  suppose  that  Cain  was  the  mur- 
derer, who  abode  not  in  the  truth,  referred  to  by  Christ  in  this  place. 
But  should  any  of  his  readers  have  some  "doubts  and  difficulties,"  as 
to  this  allusion,  he  has  still  another  bridge  over  which  he  can  retreat. 
In  that  case,  he  says,  "  Jesus  need  only  be  supposed  to  refer  to  the 
commonly  received  opinion  of  the  origin  of  evil  designs  and  wicked 
practices."  Any  farther  explanatory  notice  one  would  think  a  work 
of  supererogation.  However,  he  follows  up  these  two  rather  start- 
ling proposition?  by  a  third,  which  is  not  far  out  of  its  proper  place  in 
capping  such  a  climax.  "  In  the  language  of  his  reproaches  and  of 
his  accusations  against  those  who  were  seeking  his  life,  we  are  not 
to  look  for  his  authorized  instructions  upon  a  subject  incidentally 
inti'oduced"  .'!.'  Incidentally  introduced!  Expressly  introduced  by 
himself,  without  any  call  or  extraordinary  occasion  for  it  on  the  part 
of  the  Jews. — Such  is  the  reverence  of  English  Unitarians  for  what 
they  allow  to  be  the  very  declarations  of  Christ  himself  No 
wonder  after  this,  that  the  apostles  should  be  treated  quite  cavalierly. 
"  Acts  xiii.  10.      '  0  full  of  all  subtilty  and  all  mischief,  thou  child 


105 

of  the  devil,  thou  enemy  of  all  righteousness,'  &c.  Paul  was  a  man 
of  strong  feelings  and  strong  passions,  and  no  doubt  was  greatly  irri- 
tated and  provoked  by  the  conduct  of  Elymas.  It  seems  there  was 
just  occasion  for  this  resentment,  for  it  is  recorded  that  Elymas  was 
struck  blind  by  the  instrumentality  of  Paul ;  but  no  argument  for 
the  existence  and  agency  of  the  devil  can  be  founded  on  the  indig- 
nant language  of  the  apostle."  Certainly  not !  If  the  language  "  of 
reproach  and  accusation"  employed  by  Christ  only  conlirmed  his 
hearers  in  a  long  received  error,  what  else  could  be  expected  from  an 
"  indignant "  apostle  ?  It  matters  not  that,  in  the  ninth  verse,  Paul  is 
said  to  have  been  "  full  of  the  Holy  Ghost ;"  a  cii'cumstance  thought 
too  unimportant  by  this  writer  to  deserve  even  a  passing  notice.  The 
devil,  who  goes  about  as  a  roaring  lion,  is,  according  to  this  writer, 
none  other  than  Nero. 

We  now  come  to  a  passage,  to  which,  and  this  writer's  remarks 
upon  it,  I  do  most  earnestly  invite  the  serious,  inquiring,  reflecting 
reader  to  give  special  attention.  "  1  John,  iii.  8.  '  He  that  committeth 
sin,  is  of  the  devil ;  for  the  devil  sinneth  from  the  beginning.  For 
this  purpose  the  Son  of  God  was  manifested,  that  he  might  destroy 
the  works  of  the  devil.'  Unquestionably  the  devil  is  here  spoken  of 
as  the  author  of  sin  ;  and  as  a  being  who  himself  sinned ;  in  reference 
to  which  the  apostle  again  says,  verse  10,  '  in  this  the  children  of 
God  are  manifest,  and  the  children  of  the  devil ;  whosoever  doetli 
not  righteousness  is  not  of  God.'  "  This  writer  allows,  that  in  the 
12th  verse,  the  same  allusion  is  made,  "  not  as  Cain,  who  was  of  that 
wicked  one  and  slew  his  brother."  Even  a  rational  understanding 
could  not  help  seeing  that  "  the  wicked  one,"  of  whom  Cain  was, 
differed  from  this  very  Cain  himself,  who  is  said  to  be  the  devil  in 
the  eighth  of  John.  "  It  may  however  be  questioned,"  [what  can- 
not be  questioned  by  a  sturdy,  heartless  skeptic  ?]  "  whether  the  apos- 
tle means  to  support  the  truth  of  this  opinion,  or  only  adopts  it  as 
the  common  and  prevailing  one."  Again.  "  This  may  be  only  in 
allusion  to  the  philosophy  of  that  dark  age,  v,^hen  the  Jews  incorpo- 
rated the  mythology  of  the  heathens  with  the  pure  doctrines  of  reve- 
lation. They  on  whom  the  Sun  of  Righteousness  has  arisen,"  [wlitit 
does  this  mean  in  the  Unitarian  vocabulary  ?]  "have  learnt  that  God 
isthe  Creator  and  Maker  of  all,  that  all  men  are  his  offspring,  and  th.;t 
it  is  only  in  a  figurative  sense  that  the  vicious  are  the  children  of  the 
wicked  one,  i.  e.  of  the  devil,  or  the  being  who  is  supposed  to  sustain 
that  character,  the  author  of  every  thing  which  is  evil."  How  they 
have  learnt  this  last  fact,  he  does  not  inform  us.  Christ  and  his 
apostles  "  unquesiionahlv"  taught  a  directly  opposite  docU'inc.  1 
9* 


106 

am  not  aware  that  any  chemical  analysis,  or  any  geological  stratum, 
or  any  botanical  classification,  or  any  phrenological  nomenclature,  or 
any  of  the  results  of  comparative  anatomy,  or  any  of  the  wonders 
developed  and  demonstrated  in  the  Mechanique  Celeste,  fasten  upon 
Christ  and  his  apostles  the  charge  of  teaching  falsely,  or  of  incompe- 
tence or  unwillingness,  at  the  hazard  of  their  lives,  to  teach  the 
truth.  Till  something  in  the  shape  of  evidence  is  produced,  I  trust  it 
will  not  be  thought  indicative  of  either  weakness  or  prejudice,  to 
believe  Christ,  "  that  for  this  end  was  he  born,  and  to  this  end  came 
he  into  the  world,  to  bear  witness  unto  the  trutJi." 

But  this  writer  is  yet  to  give  the  finishing  touch  to  his  picture  of 
revelation.  "  Tlie  only  passage  in  Jude  is  one  of  very  doubtful 
authority.  I  do  not  mean  that  it  is  wanting  in  any  of  the  copies 
now  extant ;"  [alter  this,  I  hope  we  shall  hear  no  more  from  the 
Unitarian  press  about  Griesbach  :  of  what  use  are  his  labors  ?  The 
lower  criticism  is  gone  ;]  "  but  of  doubtful  authority,  that  an  inspired 
apostle,  or  one  who  had  a  competent  knowledge  of  the  history  of  the 
Old  Testament,  and  of  the  dispensation  of  the  gospel,  should  intro- 
duce such  a  flibulous  legend  as  that,  which  is  the  subject  of  the  9th 
verse,  how  that  Michael,  &c.  If  any  one  can  build  his  faith  in  the 
existence  of  such  a  being,  on  such  a  contemptible  story  as  this,  I 
would  leave  him  in  quiet  possession  of  his  opinion  ;  for  there  is  little 
room  to  hope  that  reason  will  have  much  influence,  where  absurdity 
has  obtained  such  an  absolute  dominion."  Let  it  not  be  forgotten 
that  English  and  American  Unitarians  solemnly  profess  to  receive  the 
epistle  of  Jude  as  a  part  of  the  inspired  Word  of  God. 

Let  it  be  remembered  that  the  preceding  extracts  have  been  taken 
from  the  accredited  organ  of  English  Unitarianism,  evidently  written 
by  one  able  to  make  the  best  of  his  subject.  It  is  no  common  mind, 
which  can  give  such  uncommon  twists  to  scripture.  These  were 
written  twenty  years  ago.  L^nitarianism  is  a  precipitous  declivity  ; 
down,  down,  down  to  a  bottomless  abyss.  But  few  prints  of  return- 
ing feet  are  to  be  traced  in  an  upward  pathway.  What  Marshal  Ney 
said  to  Napoleon,  "  revolutions  never  go  backward,"  is  equally  true 
in  the  religious  and  in  the  political  world.  A  distinguished  Unitarian 
writer  thinks,  that  if  forty  years  more  are  allowed  his  system,  it  may 
be  proved  as  true  by  its  ivorks,  as  Calvinism.  I  will  only  ask,  if 
fifteen  years  have  brought  the  greater  part  of  the  Unitarian  clergy  of 
New  England,  from  Worcesterians  or  Semi-Arians  to  Humanitarians, 
how  long  it  will  take  the  latter  to  become  infidels  in  speculation  ? 
Mark  thiSy  I  do  not  charge  any  one    with   designing  to  become 


107 

infidel.  But  I  recollect  who  said,  "'ye  know  not  what  manner 
of  spirit  ye  are  of."  /  know  what  have  been  the  results  with 
mi7ids  similarly  circumstanced.  Moral  causes  and  moral  effects  are 
as  indissolubly  conjoined  as  any  in  the  physical  world.  Mr.  Belsham, 
ungratefully  neglected  by  his  American  brethren,  shall  have  a  hear- 
ing. "  In  the  New  Testament  the  word  devil  is  sometimes  used  to 
personify  the  principle  of  evil,  and  sometimes  the  idolatrous  and  per- 
secuting power ;  and  the  want  of  attention  to  this  figurative  mode  of 
expression,  has  misled  many  readers  who  were  ignorant  of  the 
Hebrew  and  Oriental  phraseology,  and  has  induced  them  to  believe 
the  real  existence  of  an  evil  spirit."  Month.  Rep.  p.  305,  1807. 
Mr.  Belsham  is  a  man  of  thought,  of  greater  capacity  of  thinking, 
I  verily  believe,  than  any  American  co-worker  in  the  same  cause, 
and  not  inferior  in  learning,  and  far,  very  far  beyond  them  all  in 
open  frankness  of  expression.  He  is  an  honest  man.  In  the  passage 
just  quoted,  it  will  be  seen  that  he  coincides  with  Cappe,  with  the 
anonymous  representative  of  English  Unitarianism,  and  with  the  Rev. 
Mr.  Ware. 

I  have  not  thought  it  necessary  to  remark,  in  the  Letters,  on  the  al- 
leged use  of  the  word  devil,  in  the  New  Testament,  as  a  personification 
of  the  idolatrous  and  persecuting  power.  I  know  not  that  any  New- 
England  Unitarian  holds  that  opinion.  Let  the  reader,  however, 
apply  either  of  Mr.  Belsham's  personifications  to  this  one  passage,  "  the 
devils  believe  and  tremble,"  in  its  connexion  in  the  epistle  of  James. 
Mr.  Belsham  is  not  ignorant  of  the  power  of  words,  nor  what  a  mist 
hard  names  can  conjure  up  before  ignorant  imaginations.  He  under- 
stands the  "  philosophy  of  mind"  too  well,  to  let  slip  the  opportunity 
of  verbal  influence.  We  could  tell  him  of  some,  who,  after  years  of 
study  in  the  Hebrew  idiom  and  habitudes  of  thought,  and  after  an 
acquaintance,  not  altogether  slight,  with  the  Syriac  and  Chaldaic  and 
Arabic  languages  and  learning,  still  "  believed  the  real  existence  of 
an  evil  spirit."  In  his  own  land,  he  might  find  in  Proffessor  Lee,  "  the 
admirable  Crichton"  of  the  age,  such  an  one ;  he  need  not  go  far 
from  his  own  door  to  meet  John  Pye  Smith,  the  first  dissenting  cleri- 
cal scholar  of  Great  Britain,  whose  chastened  taste,  and  various  learn- 
ing, and  unassuming  yet  active  piety,  present  one  of  the  most  finish- 
ed models  for  youthful  contemplation. 

One  other  quotation  from  the  Monthly  Repository,  shall  close  this 
Note.  A  writer  therein  thinks  the  sufferings  of  Christ  in  the  garden, 
resulted  from  the  exquisite  susceptibilities  of  his  physical  frame. 
Besides,  "  he  had  a  most  severe  and  distressing  bodily  disorder"  at 


108 

this  time.  He  was  seized  "  with  a  violent  nervous  affection."  Hence 
his  distress.  I  suspect  this  will  be  news  to  the  most  enlightened 
American  rationalist. 


NOTE  D.  Page  56. 

As  the  Unitarians  have  recently  broken  ground  on  a  subject,  where 
it  has  long  been  known,  often  predicted,  and  as  often  denied,  that 
they  must  ultimately  come,  it  may  not  be  "  travelling  too  far  beyond 
the  record,"  to  meet  them  at  the  outset  in  a  note  appended  to  this 
discussion.  The  subject  referred  to  will  be  found,  in  the  end,  to  be 
nothing  less  than  a  denial  of  the  inspiration  of  the  whole  sacred 
volume.  In  the  Christian  Examiner  for  January  and  February,  1828, 
is  the  continuation  of  a  learned  and  elaborate  essay  on  the  author  of 
the  epistle  to  the  Hebrews.  The  writer  of  this  essay  has  come  out, 
with  a  degree  of  boldness,  and  a  distinctness  of  expression,  hitherto 
unusual  in  his  school.  For  this  the  community  will  thank  him.  No 
religious  teacher,  least  of  all  an  instructer  of  religious  teachers,  should 
hold  opinions  which  he  would  not  freely  state,  and,  when  called  upon 
respectfully,  defend  with  what  of  argument  and  ability  he  may 
possess.  For  his  own  religious  opinions,  individually,  he  is  alone 
responsible  to  his  God  and  his  Redeemer.  But  when  he  assumes 
the  office  of  a  public  teacher  in  any  community,  his  situation  changes. 
He  is  then  in  duty  hound  to  let  that  community  know,  fully  and 
frankly,  what  his  opinions  are.  The  writer  referred  to  is,  both  by 
report  and  by  internal  evidence,  a  distinguished  individual  in  the 
Unitarian  ranks.  When  on  common  ground,  he  writes  with  a  beauty 
and  a  force  that  are  truly  admirable.  Two  pages  from  the  pen  of 
Johnson  can  scarcely  be  selected,  superior  in  discrimination  and  fe- 
licity of  expression,  to  those  which  precede  the  discussion  in  this 
number  of  the  Examiner.  In  this  essay,  though  something,  I  doubt 
not,  is  still  undisclosed,  something  new,  in  this  country,  has  been 
advanced.  The  fact,  that  Unitarians  reject  the  epistle  to  the  He- 
brews as  uncanonical,  is  not  now  for  the  first  time  known,  though  it 
is  for  the  first  time  distinctly  made  known  in  the  accredited  organ  of 
American  Unitarianism.*      The  epistle  to  the  Hebrews  must  be  got 

*  I  shall  not  stop  to  inquire  why  so  absurd,  illogical,  mystical,  unintelligible  a 
book  has  been  50  Zo7io-  allowed  by  intelligent  Unitarians  to  pass  for  g-e/uiine,  be- 
lieving it,  as  they  must  have  done,  to  be  spurious. 


109 

rid  of  at  all  events.  Such  a  feeling  seems  to  have  actuated  this 
writer,  from  the  beginning  to  the  end  of  his  communication.  He 
does  not  state,  nor  give  even  a  passing  notice  to  the  arguments, 
historical,  critical,  and  irresistible,  of  Professor  Stuart.  I  will  not 
suffer  myself  to  state  in  appropriate  terms  what  he  has  done,  lest 
some  of  my  readers  should  think  that  such  words  ill  become  the  ad- 
vocate of  truth.  I  will  only  say  to  the  intelligent  reader,  who  is 
willing  to  know  the  truth,  "  read,  compare  and  consider  the  Introduc- 
tion to  this  epistle  by  Prof.  Stuart  and  this  essay,  which  purports  to 
be  a  review  of  this  Introduction." 

The  rejection  of  this  epistle,  however,  will  ultimately  be  found  an 
immaterial  and  unimportant  part  of  the  developements  made  in  this 
essay.  As  this  writer  has  not  noticed  Prof.  Stuart's  arguments,  he 
will  not  complain,  (at  least  he  need  not,)  that  I  do  not  here  notice 
the  first  number  of  his  essay,  but  confine  my  remarks  to  his  second. 
His  argument,  in  his  own  words,  is  this,  "  St  Paul  and  the  writer  to 
the  Hebreivs  differ  widely  from  each  other  in  their  prevailing  mode 
of  interpreting  the  Jewish  scriptures,  in  the  use  which  they  make, 
in  reasoning,  of -passages  from  those  scriptures,  and  in  their  style  of 
reasoning  generally:'  p.  38.  To  those  who  are  not  disposed  to  submit 
the  dictum  of  any  man,  however  learned,  but  rather  to  examine 
every  argument  however  plausible,  something  may  be  suggested, 
which  will  not  only  call  in  question  the  validity  of  this  argument, 
but  may  also  start  the  inquiry,  whether,  if  not  under,  at  least  hi  con- 
nexion with  it,  something  more  is  not  meant  than  meets  the  eye. 
This  argument  may  first  be  refuted  as  above  stated,  and  then  stated  in 
the  altered  form  the  writer  has  contrived  to  give  it  in  the  course  of  his 
remarks,  and  whiqh  he  well  knows  it  must  take  or  not  be  "  worth  a 
straw." 

This  writer  being  judge,  "  all  the  evangelists  are  allegorists."*  He 
will  not  deny  that  Christ  himself  indulged  in  the  allegorical  or  mys- 
tical interpretation  and  appUcation  of  the  Old  Testament,  if  his  con- 
versations and  remarks  are  reported  correctly  by  these  evangelists. 
Peter,  in  his  addresses  to  the  Jews,  adopts  this  mode  of  reasoning. 
Thus  far  Paul  is  untouched.  But  the  following  concession  is  by  the 
essayist  himself.  "  Allegorical  interpretations  of  the  Old  Testament, 
similar  to  those  on  which  the  reasoning  in  the  epistle  to  the  He- 
brews is  founded,  occur,  likewise,  in  the  gospels  and  in  the  Acts  of  the 

*  This  writer  shall  have  the  privilege  of  defininar  his  own  terms.  We  hope  he 
and  his  brethren  will  be  as  courteous  iu  return.  "  Allegorical,"  "  mystical,"  "  mere- 
ly imaginary,"  are  synonymous.  "  An  allegorical  meaning  is  amj  supposed  mysti- 
cal meaning,  answering  in  some  sort  to  the  true  meaning  of  a  passage,  whether 
that  passage  be  literal  or  figurative."  p.  40. 


no 

apostles.  They  are  found  in  a  speech  of  St.  Paul,  as  it  is  given  by 
St.  Luke,  in  the  thirteenth  chapter  of  the  Acts."  p.  53.  This  was  a 
speech  addressed  to  "  the  men  of  Israel,"  i.  e.  to  the  Hebrews. 
Grant  now,  what  this  writer  labors  through  ten  pages  to  prove,  that 
Paul  in  his  other  epistles  addressed  to  Gentiles,  never  allegorizes. 
What  becomes  of  his  argument  ?  Surely  when  the  evangelists,  and 
Christ  according  to  these  evangelists,  and  Peter  and  Paul  in  ad- 
dressing the  Hebrews,  all  use  interpretations  of  the  Old  Testament 
similar  to  those  on  which  the  reasoning  in  the  ejnstle  to  the  He- 
brews is  founded,  this  writer  might  have  spared  both  his  learning  and 
his  labor  to  prove  that  Paul,  in  addressing  these  very  Hebrews, 
would  not  still  adopt  the  same  mode  of  reasoning.  To  show  that  he 
allegorized  to  Gentiles  but  little,  would  only  show  that  there  was 
little  occasion  for  it ;  or  to  show  that  he  did  not  allegorize  at  all, 
would  not  at  all  touch  the  point.  What  should  we  think  of  the  bibli- 
cal critic's  logic,  who  should  attempt  to  prove  that  the  speech  re- 
corded in  the  thirteenth  chapter  of  the  Acts,  could  not  have  been  dehv- 
ered  by  the  same  orator,  who,  on  Mars  Hill  reasoned  with  the 
Stoicks  and  the  Epicureans  "  out  of  their  own  poets,"  and  should 
give  as  his  reason,  that  in  the  first  speech  the  orator  reasoned  with 
the  Hebrews  according  to  their  own  principles,  and  "  out  of  their 
own  scriptures  "  ?  Yet  this  is  precisely  the  absurdity  of  this  writer, 
learned  as  he  is,  and  discriminating  as  he  can  be,  when  the  least  flaw 
is  to  oe  uetecteu  In  an  opponent's  argument. 

In  principles  of  reasoning,  and  methods  of  quoting  scripture  or  po- 
etry, the  orator  at  Athens  "  differs  as  widely"  from  the  orator  at 
Antioch,  as  the  writer  of  the  epistles  to  the  Thessalonians,  differs 
from  the  writer  of  the  epistle  to  the  Hebrews.  Was  Paul  at  Anti- 
och a  different  orator  from  Paul  at  Athens  ?  Would  not  this  essayist 
have  done  but  impartial  justice  to  have  recollected  an  avowed  maxim 
of  the  apostle,  that  in  things  not  criminal,  he  "  became  all  things  to 
all  men,"  "  to  the  Jews  as  a  Jew  "  ?  I  will  here  quote  a  remark  from 
an  author,  who,  this  writer  will  admit,  understood  what  he  said. 
"  His  reasoning,  [the  apostle  Paul's,]  which,  at  first  view  might 
seem  unsatisfactory,  will  in  many  cases  appear  striking  and  forcible, 
when  we  have  a  correct  notion  of  the  opinions  and  sentiments  of  those 
for  whom  it  was  designed."  p.  69.  This  remark  is  equally  true  and 
valuable.  Let  the  essayist  review  his  quotations  from  Lightfoot,  &c. 
and  let  him  decide  from  his  own  authorities,  whether  the  epistle  to 
the  Hebrews  was  not  the  place  of  all  places  for  that  mode  of  inter- 
pretation, which  he  himself  allows  to  have  been  common  and  popular 
among  that  people. 


Ill 

Let  those  at  Cambridge,  accustomed  jurare  in  verba  magistri, 
examine  well  before  they  take  assertions  to  be  proof,  or  as- 
siimptions  to  be  arguments.  For  the  benefit  of  those,  who  im- 
agine themselves  enjoying  the  pure  light  of  unsullied  truth,  I  will 
quote  another  remark  from  this  essayist,  and  contrast  it  with  one  or 
two  from  a  different  quarter.  "  Among  his  cotemporaries,  he  [the 
writer  to  the  Hebrews]  was  probably  distinguished  for  his  intellectual 
powers.  But  his  reasoning  cannot  be  regarded  as  of  any  force  by 
an  intelligent  reader  of  the  present  day.  It  is  difficult  so  far  to  ac- 
commodate our  minds  to  the  conceptions  and  principles  of  the  au- 
thor and  his  cotemporaries,  as  to  perceive  how  it  was  adapted  to 
produce  any  effect  at  the  time  it  was  written."  p.  40  Again,  "  The  force 
of  St.  Paul's  reasoning,  and  the  weakness  of  the  reasoning  of  the 
writer  to  the  Hebrews,  will  be  most  clearly  perceived  by  him,  who 
best  understands  their  writings."  p.  70.  It  seems,  then,  according  to  the 
dictum  of  this  essayist,  that  "  an  intelligent  reader"  must  at  once 
detect  "the  weakness  of  the  reasoning"  exhibited  in  the  epistle  to 
the  Hebrews,  and,  contrasting  it  with  the  usual  strength  of  Paul's, 
must  reject  the  claims  of  that  apostle  to  its  authorship.  This  is  as- 
sertion, depending  for  its  credibility  on  the  character  of  its  asserter. 
What  he  presents  in  the  shape  of  argument,  has  been  met  by  argu- 
ment. His  assertions,  put  forth  so  confidently,  may  he  fairly  met  by 
counter  assertions  of  names  quite  as  learned  and  quite  as  willing  to 
look  at  both  sides  as  himself.  Storr,  in  his  Theology,  vol.  i.  p.  120, 
says,  that  "  Eerger,  in  his  Dissertation  entitled,  '  The  Epistle  to  the- 
Hebrews  a  Homily,'  finds  so  great  a  similarity  between  the  epistle  to 
the  Hebrews  and  Paul's  discourse,  Acts,  xiii.  16 — 41,  that  he  believes 
this  discourse  might  be  regarded  as  an  extract  from  that  epistle,  or 
vice  versa,  that  epistle  as  a  commentary  on  this  discourse."  Storr 
was  himself  something  of  a  dialectitian,  and  paid  as  close  attention  to 
the  epistles  of  Paul  and  that  to  the  Hebrews,  probably,  as  this  es- 
sayist, and,  perhaps,  as  any  man  now  living.  Need  I  say  what  was 
the  result  with  this  "  intelligent  reader "  ?  This  essayist,  probably, 
does  not  consider  Prof.  Stuart  an  "  intelligent  reader,"  and  does  not 
number  him  among  those  who  "  best  understand  their  writings," 
i.  e.  of  Paul  and  the  vviiter  to  the  Hebrews.  But  as,  in  this  com- 
munity, he  will  probably  be  singular  in  his  opinion,  the  following 
remark  from  Prof.  Stuart,  may,  by  some,  be  thought  of  equal  weight 
with  that  of  the  essayist.  "  My  own  conviction,  (if  I  may  be  permitted 
to  express  it,)  is  as  clear  in  respect  to  this  point,  as  from  its  nature  I 
could  expect  it  to  be.  I  began  the  examination  of  the  subject  un- 
biassed, if  I  was  ever  unbiassed  in  the  examination  of  any  question ; 


112 

and  the  evidence  before  me  has  led  me  to  such  a  result ;"  viz,  that 
Paul  was  the  writer  of  the  episUe  to  the  Hebrews.  How  can  the 
essayist  wonder  that  Berger,  and  Storr,  and  Stuart,  should  believe 
that  the  reasoning  of  the  writer  to  the  Hebrews  had  the  exact  force 
of  PauVs  reasoning,  when  he  himself  tells  us,  that  interpretations  of 
the  Old  Testament,  similar  to  those  on  which  the  reasoning  in  the 
epistle  to  the  Hebrews  is  founded,  exist  in  Paul's  speech  to  those 
Hebrews  ?     Is  it  a  wonder  that  Paul  is  consistent  with  himself  ? 

I  do  not  expect  by  these  remarks,  to  shake  one  prejudice  in  the 
mind  of  a  settled,  thorough-going,  Unitarian.  But  will  the  young, 
ingenuous,  inquiring  minds,  who  boast  that  their  opinions  must  rest 
on  reason,  take  the  self-contradictory  dogmas  of  any  man  in  lieu  of 
evidence  ?  I  ask  all  reflecting,  intelligent,  candid  minds,  Has  not 
the  argument,  as  stated  in  the  words  of  the  gentleman  himself,  been 
refuted  ?  Just  recollect  that  he  himself  assures  us,  that  Paul  alle- 
gorizes in  his  recorded  speech  addressed  to  the  Hebrews  ;  that  his 
epistle  to  the  Hebrews  is  an  epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  with  whom, 
according  to  his  own  showing,  the  allegorical  mode  of  interpretation 
was  in  general  favour  and  use  ;  and  the  essayist's  forty  pages  are 
null  and  void. 

I  come  now  to  considerations  of  greater  moment.  I  will  here 
state  the  argument  in  the  form  it  must  take,  and  which  this  writer 
knows  full  well  it  must  take,  or  go  for  nothing.  Paul  never  allego- 
rizes. The  writer  to  the  Hebrews  does  allegorize.  Therefore  he 
is  not  Paul.  Again.  He  who  employs  the  allegorical  mode  of 
interpretation  is  unworthy  of  credit.  This  writer  employs  this 
mode  of  interpretation.  Therefore  he  is  unworthy  of  credit.  Where- 
fore this  writer  is  not  Paul,  and,  be  he  who  he  may,  is  unworthy 
of  credit. 

Should  the  essayist  object  to  the  syllogism  by  which  an  allegorist 
is  proved  unworthy  of  credit,  I  would  thank  him  for  the  arguments 
by  which  he  would  disprove  it.  Though  the  gentleman  has  given  his 
argument  in  words  as  before  quoted,  he  has  contrived  in  its  progress, 
to  present  it  in  the  form  which  I  have  just  stated.  He  is  too  intelli- 
gent a  man,  and  too  skilful  a  logician,  not  to  see,  with  Paul's  speech 
before  him,  that  the  argument,  as  stated  by  himself,  is  at  least  ex- 
ceedingly unsatisfactory,  and  to  the  Orthodox  will  be  wholly  nuga- 
tory.    How  he  disposes  of  Paul's  speech,  we  shall  soon  see. 

That  the  writer  strongly  desired  and  covertly  designed  to  present 
the  argument  as  just  stated,  the  following  extracts,  1  think,  will  show. 
"  We  have  thus  gone  through  those  passages  of  St.  Paul,  which  we 
believe  would  be  selected  by  a  writer,  whose  object  it  was  to  show 


113 

that  he  had  given  a  mystical  sense  to  words  of  the  Old  Testament. 
JVone  of  them,  when  properly  understood,  seem  to  afford  any  foun- 
dation*'for  the  opinion.  But  supposing  it  to  have  been  proved  that 
they  do  not,  more  has  been  proved  than  is  necessary  to  the  present 
argument.  In  order  to  establish  a  wide  difference  between  St.  Paul 
and  the  writer  to  the  Hebrews,  it  would  be  sufficient  to  show,  that 
the  mind  of  the  apostle,  during  that  period  of  his  Ufe  when  he  wrote 
his  epistles,  was  hut  little  affected  by  the  prevalent  errors  of  his  age, 
respecting  the  interpretation  of  the  Old  Testament."  p.  68.  Again.  "  It 
is  a  most  striking  proof  of  the  intellectual  power  of  this  apostle,  that  he 
so  far,  or  entirely,  disengaged  himself  from  the  errors  of  the  learned  of 
his  nation,  respecting  the  interpretation  of  the  Old  Testament."  p.  69. 
The  words,  "  or  entirely,"  were  not  used  by  this  writer  without 
thought,  or  the  perception  of  their  bearing.  He  thinks  this  a  circum- 
stance hitherto  overlooked,  in  estimating  the  intellectual  stature  of 
this  apostle.  He  is  right.  By  Unitarians  it  has  been  overlooked  ;  we 
are  glad  it  has  at  length  been  discovered.  Again,  p.  69.  "Be  has  no- 
where in  his  epistles  attempted  to  accommodate  to  Jesus  any  of  the 
allegorical  expositions  by  which  so  many  passages  were  made  by  the 
Jews  to  refer  in  a  mystical  sense,  to  their  expected  Messiah ;"  a  for- 
tiori, we  must  argue,  that  he  nowhere  accommodates  those  Jewish 
allegorical  expositions  to  any  other  subject.  JV  one  of  the  passages  in 
his  other  epistles,  wherein  he  has  been  supposed  to  adopt  the  allegori- 
cal mode  of  interpretation,  seem  to  afford  any  ground  for  such  an  opin- 
ion. The  apostle  entirely  disengaged  himself  from  this  error  of  the 
learned  of  his  nation.  He  nowhere  attempts  to  accommodate  any  of 
the  allegorical  meanings,  attributed  by  the  Jews  to  the  Old  Testament, 
to  Christ  (or  to  any  other  person  or  subject.)  The  inference  is  irre- 
sistible. Paul  never  allegorizes.  In  other  words,  Paul  never  uses 
that  mode  of  reasoning  adopted  by  the  writer  to  the  Hebrews,  where*- 
fore  he  is  not  that  writer.  This  is  the  drift  of  the  essayist's  explana- 
tions and  argument.  Still  the  speech,  recorded  in  the  Acts  as  having 
been  deUvered  by  Paul  at  Antioch  in  Pisidia,  when  invited  to  address 
the  "  men  of  Israel "  by  "  the  rulers  of  the  synagogue,"  wherein, 
according  to  this  writer,  Paul  indulges  in  "  allegorical  interpretations 
of  the  Old  Testament,  similar  to  those  on  which  the  reasoning  in  the 
epistle  to  the  Hebrews  is  founded,"  remains  to  be  disposed  of. 
How  does  he  meet  this  difficulty  ?  He  does  not  meet  it.  He 
does  not  attempt  to  meet  it  openly.  He  tries  to  shun  it.  It  is  only 
by  hints,  and  a  cautious  mode  of  stating  his  argument,  that  we  can 
conjecture  how  he  could  evade  ^  concession  so  destructive  to  his 
10 


114 

whole  argument,  as  that  just  quoted.  This  writer  understands  per- 
fectly the  force  of  language,  and  if  he  adopt  a  peculiarity  of  expres- 
sion, it  is  not  without  reason.  "  Allegorical  interpretations  are  found 
in  the  speech  of  St.  Paul,  as  it  is  given  by  Si.  Luke,  in  the  thirteenth 
chapter  of  the  Acts.  This  speech  was  delivered  a  considerable  time" 
[how  long  is  a  considerable  time  ?]  "  before  the  composition  of  the 
earliest  of  his  epistles,  which  was,  probably,  (?)  that  to  the  Gala- 
tians."*  Those  words,  "  as  it  is  given  by  St.  Luke,"  are  very  inno- 
cent and  very  true  in  themselves.  Whether  they  have  a  hidden 
meaning,  the  author  has  not  told  us.  In  the  absence  of  positive,  we 
must  cast  about  for  circumstantial  evidence,  which,  though  often  in- 
conclusive, is  sometimes  irresistible.  The  same  Luke,  who  wrote 
the  Acts,  it  must  be  remembered,  is  one  of  the  evangelists,  "  all  of 
whom  are  allegorists."  If  "  they  unconsciously  and  through  inad- 
vertence may  have  given  an  allegorical  interpretation  to  the  words  of 
Christ,  which  as  uttered  by  him,  were  used  only  by  way  of  applica- 
tion," as  this  writer  avers,  Paul  surely  could  not  expect  to  fare  better 
than  his  master.  It  might  very  naturally  be  expected,  that  "  by  a  slight 
change  of  expression,"  Paul's  words,  "used  by  way  of  application," 
would  receive  from  the  pen  of  the  allegorizing  historian  "  an  allegori- 
cal turn."  This  will  appear  still  more  probable,  when  we  recollect 
that  710  jjassage  in  the  epistles  of  St.  Paul  seems  to  afford  any  foun- 
dation for  the  opinion,  that  he  ever  used  the  allegorical  interpretation, 
that  he  had  not "  entirely  disengaged  himself  from  this  error  of  the 
learned  of  his  nation." 

The  inference  from  all  this  is,  the  moral  certainty  that  "  the  speech, 
as  it  is  given  by  St.  Luke,"  is  not  the  speech  as  it  was  delivered  by 
iSt.  Paul.  Should,  however,  any  "  doubts  or  difficulties "  remain 
after  this  logical  demonstration,  the  reader  must  further  consider, 
that  "  this  speech  was  delivered  a  considerable  time  before  the  com- 
position of  his  earliest  epistles."t     This  is  plainly  the  writer's  resort 

*.Tf  this  uriter  will  permit,  I  would  suggest  another  probability,  at  least  equally 
as  great  as  his.  I  would  say  that  the  apostle  Paul,  after  addressing  the  "men  of 
Israel"  at  Antioch,  his  heart  glowing  with  aflection  to  "his  kinsmen  according 
to  the  flesh,"  expanded  into  this  circular  epistle  the  doctrine  he  had  just  been 
teaching  in  the  synagogue.  This  was  "  a  considerable  time"  before  he  wrote  his 
epistle  to  the  Galatians.  Some  years  after  this,  "  the  mind  of  the  apostle  might 
have  been  but  little  affected  by  the  errors  of  his  age."  Would  not  such  a  suppo- 
sition avert  the  disagreeable  necessity  of  rejecting  this  epistle,  and  even  allow 
this  writer's  argument  to  be  of  some  weight ;  For  the  real  probability  in  this  case, 
see  Prof.  Stuart's  Commentary  on  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews. 

t  Whether  this  writer  "  is  able  so  far  to  accommodate  his  mind  to  the  concep- 
tions and  principles"  of  this  orator  and  his  auditors,  "as  to  perceive  how  it  was 
adapted  to  produce  the  intended  or  any  effect  at  the  time  it  was  delivered,"  he  has 
r.ot  informed  us.  Before  he  decides  ultimately  and  forever  to  reject  the  epistle  to 
the  Hebrews,  on  such  ground  as  that  above  stated,  might  it  not  be  well  for  him  to 


115 

to  rid  himself  from  any  difficulty  arising  out  of  this  early  speech, 
as  it  is  given  by  St.  Luke.  Whether  a  really  insjiired  argument 
ever  becomes  superannuated,  I  am  not  aware  that  the  omnivorous 
Germans  have  discussed.  These  facts  combined, — that  Luke  may  not, 
and  most  probably  has  not,  correctly  reported  the  speech  of  Paul, 
and  the  very  natural  fact  that  Paul,  growing  wiser  as  he  grew  older, 
outgrew  his  own  early  prejudices,  if  he  had  any  on  this  subject,  and 
the  certain  fact,  that  in  the  epistles,  written  "  a  considerable  time," 
even  the  earliest  of  them,  after  this  speech,  the  apostle  appears  to 
have  entirely  disengaged  himself  from  this  common  error  of  the  most 
learned  of  his  countrymen, — will  leave  the  argument,  as  I  have  stated 
it,  and  as  this  essayist  has  contrived  to  present  it,  valid  and  irre- 
sistible. 

"  Look  before  you  leap,"  is  a  plain  maxim,  of  some  age  and  much 
wisdom.  Let  us  see  where  such  reasoning  would  carry  us.  This 
writer  being  judge,  "  all  the  evangelists  are  allegorists."  But  allego- 
rists  are  unworthy  of  credit.  Therefore  the  evangelists  are  unworthy 
of  credit.  Something  of  a  step  this,  to  begin  with.  The  allegorizing 
evangelist,  John,  wrote  three  epistles  and  the  apocalypse,  wherefore 
these  are  unworthy  of  credit.  Luke,  :n  addition  to  the  gospel,  wrote 
the  Acts,  wherefore  this  is  unworthy  of  credit.  After  this,  one  would 
think  that  Paul  need  apprehend  no  more  danger  from  the  speech,  "  as 
it  is  given  by  St.  Luke."  But  to  proceed.  The  inspiration  and  au- 
thority of  the  gospel  by  Mark,  have  universally  been  deduced  from  the 
sanction  given  this  book  by  Peter.  Peter,  then,  having  sanctioned  the 
allegorical  gospel  of  Mark,  (to  say  nothing  of  his  own  speeches  as  given 
by  St.  Luke,)  must  be  involved  in  the  same  condemnation  with  this 
allegorist ;  wherefore  his  two  epistles  are  unworthy  of  credit.  What 
has  just  been  said  of  Mark  and  Peter,  applies  also,  in  the  same  way, 
though  with  still  greater  force  and  certainty,  to  Luke  and  Paul.  The 
gospel,  and  the  Acts  of  the  apostles,  written  by  this  allegorist 
having  been  sanctioned  by  this  apostle,  the  latter  falls  into  the  same 
condemnation  with  the  former ;  wherefore  the  epistles  of  Paul  are 
unworthy  of  credit.  Q.  E.  D.  Truly  this  is  an  expeditious  mode 
of  despatching  business.  The  Unitarian  canon  of  inspired  books,  will 
consist,  then,  of  the  epistles  of  James  and  Jude.     But  these,  it  is  well 

reconsider  the  apostle's  speech,  from  the  thirty-first  verse  to  the  end  ?  In  this  in- 
spired argument,  the  apostle  "adopts  the  same  principle  of  reasoning,  employed  ia 
the  e'Jistle  to  the  Hebrews."  "  A  considerable  time"  after  it  was  delivered,  even 
"as  it  is  given  by  St.  Luke,"  it  came  before  the  mind  of  the  apostle,  who  not  only 
inconsiderately  failed  to  correct  the  errors  of  his  reporter,  but  actually  restamped 
upon  it  the  seal  of  his  inspired  authority.  This  consideration  I  seriously  suggest 
to  the  attentive  thought  of  this  learned  and  ingenious  essayist,  whose  system,  ami 
not  his  intellect,  is  answerable  for  these  unavoidable  absurdities. 


.  116 

known,  we?^ot  among  the  universally  received  books  in  the  primi- 
tive Christian  churcl^.*  To  reject  the  epistle  of  Jude,  considering 
the  obscurity,  not  t§^iention  "  the  fabulous  legend,  the  contemptible 
story,  found  in  the  most  ancient  manuscripts,"  cannot  be  considered 
presumptuous,  but  rather  a  proof  of  earnest  desire  not  to  receive  for 
the  Word  of  God,  the  mere  word  of  man.  Much  the  same  may  be 
said  of  the  epistle  of  James,  which  even  Luther,  in  the  very  infancy 
of  biblical  criticism,  thought  of  doubtful  authority ;  a  fortiori,  liberal 
interpreters  must  reject  it.  A  doubtful  book  cannot  be  received  as 
undoubtedly  inspired.  This  is  "  clearing  the  wreck"  quite  effectually. 
'Wliitfield  is  said  to  have  told  his  hearers  that,  were  they  permitted 
to  tear  out,  one  by  one,  a  leaf  from  the  Bible,  such  as  they  individu- 
ally disliked,  they  would  leave  him  "  only  the  covers."  Whether 
the  biblical  critics  in  our  ancient  University,  early  dedicated  to 
"  Christ  and  the  Church,"  are  not  in  a  fair  way  to  leave  us  only  the 
covers,  let  the  intelligent  reader  decide.  The  appeal  is  here  made  to 
those  capable  of  discrimination,  who  can  distinguish  between  logic  and 
rhetoric,  between  argument  and  assumption,  who  can  trace  the  con- 
nexion, if  it  exist,  between  premises  and  conclusion,  whether,  al- 
lowing the  evangelists  to  be  allegorists,  according  to  the  concession 
ef  the  essayist,  and  his  argument,  as  he  has  contrived  to  present  it,  to 
be  valid,  the  conclusion  is  not  irresistible,  that  all  the  Nev/  Testament, 
excepting  the  epistles  of  James  and  Jude,  is  unworthy  of  credit,  as  of 
divine  inspiration,  and  of , infallible  authority?  "The  intelligent 
reader"  will  bear  in  mind,  that  this  question  does  not  relate  simply  to 
the  honest  endeavors  of  the  evangelists  and  apostles  to  tell  the  truth, 
"  to  the  best  of  their  knowledge,"  but  to  their  inspired,  infallible 
authority.  How  the  epistles  of  James  and  Jude  could  be  proved  in- 
spired after  the  rejection  of  the  rest  of  the  New  Testament,  and 
whether  the  dispute  about  them  would  be  "  worth  the  candle,"  I 
shall  not  stop  to  inquire. 

The  great  importance  of  this  subject  warrants  an  extended  and  va- 
ried illustration.  The  essayist  thinks  the  epistle  to  the  Galatians,  the 
first  epistle  written  by  Paul.  p.  53.    His  reasons  for  this  opinion  he  has 

*To  prevent  misapprehension  on  the  part  of  any,  it  may  \ye  stated,  that  of  the 
twenty-seven  books,  which  now  compose  the  New  Testament,  twenty  were  re- 
ceived by  all  the  early  Christian  churches  witii  unanimous  consent  from  the  apos- 
tolic age.  These  are  called  universally  received  books.  The  remaining  seven, 
were  generally  received  by  the  churches,  hut  not,  at  first,  universally.  About  the 
first  class,  there  was  no  doubt  on  the  part  of  any.  About  the  second,  there  was 
very  little,  resulting  generally  from  circumstances  easily  understood.  The  latter 
class  consists  of  the  epistles  to  the  Hebrews,  of  James,  second  of  Peter,  second  and 
third  of  John,  Jude,  and  the  Revelation.  As  the  attack  has  recently  been  commen- 
ced on  the  first  named  of  this  latter  class,  it  may  safely  be  presumed  that  is  this  but 
the  opening  of  the  campaign,  a  war  of  extermination  having  been  resolved  upon. 
At  all  events,  when  war  begins,  who  can  tell  when  and  where  it  will  end  ? 


not  stated.  Among  these  he  would  probably  pft^tHis,  iM  manner,  o-f 
reasoning  employ  edin  this  epistle  hears  a  greater,  resemblance  to 
that  of  the  speech  in  the  Acts,  than  that  employed  in  his  other  epis- 
tles. Paul  v.-as  a  young  man  when  that  speech  was  delivered,  in 
which  he  uses  the  allegorical  mode  of  interpretation  and  reasoning. 
This  epistle  shows  that  he  still  cast  a  lingering  look  back  to  the  favo- 
rite mode  of  argumentation,  employed  by  the  most  learned  of  his 
countrymen.  Though  he  had  not  as  yet  divested  himself  of  every 
prejudice,  he  does  not  suffer  his  argument  to  be  marred  by  it.  After 
this,  he  manifests  no  trace  of  this  error  of  his  countrymen,  as  is  appa- 
rent from  his  other  epistles,  in  which  "  he  nowhere  attempts  to  ac- 
commodate to  Jesus,  any  of  the  allegorical  expositions,  by  which  so 
many  passages  were  made  by  the  Jews  to  refer,  in  a  mystical  sense, 
to  their  expected  Messiah."  p.  69.  The  essayist  would  argue,  and 
with  apparent  logic,  this  epistle,  more  nearly  resembling  the  allego- 
rical argument,  as  given  by  St.  Luke,  than  any  other  of  Paul's  epis- 
tles, though  written  "  a  considerable  time  "  after  that  speech,  was 
probably  written  before  the  other  epistles.  The  whole  force  of  this 
argument  (the  strongest  I  can  imagine  to  support  the  essayist's  extra- 
ordinary position)  rests  on  the  assumed  state  of  the  apostle's  mind  at 
different  periods,  as  either  disposed  or  not  disposed  to  use  the  alle- 
gorical mode  of  reasoning  from  and  appealing  to  the  Old  Testament. 
The  apparent  weight  of  this  argiunent,  which  is  all  it  possesses,  may 
be  soon  made  to  disappear. 

Dr.  Carpenter,  no  mean  critic  for  a  Unitarian,  and  the  Unitarians 
and  Orthodox  generally,  think  it  probable  that  the  tirst  epistle  to  the 
Thessalonians  was  the  first  epistle  written  by  Paul,  about  A.  D.  52, 
I  assume  the  position,  that  the  concurrent  opinion  of  the  great  body 
of  the  Unitarian  and  Orthodox  critics  is  quite  as  probable,  as  the 
opinion  of  this  essayist,  learned  as  he  is.  They  generally  think  this 
epistle  to  the  Thessalonians  was  written,  at  least  five,  and  perhaps 
ten  or  even  fifteen  years  before  that  to  the  Galatian  churches.  But 
in  this  epistle  to  the  Thessalonians,  as  all  allow,  Paul  does  not  em- 
ploy the  allegorical  mode  of  reasoning ;  he  does  not  quote  nor  even 
refer  to  the  Old  Testament.  He  was  at  least  five  and,  perhaps,  fifteen 
years  ("a  considerable  time,"  this!)  younger,  than  when  he  ad- 
dressed the  Galatian  churches.  How  should  this  happen,  that,  in  the 
epistle  generally  believed  to  have  been  the  first  he  wrote,  there  i:^ 
no  trace  of  an  allegorizing  spirit,  when  in  his  epistles  to  the  Galatian^ 
and  others,  written  a  considerable  time  later,  there  are  many  pas- 
sages, which,  the  essayist  allows,  "  seem  to-  require  some  explana- 


118 

tion  "?  Is  it  not  possible  that  his  opinion  and  argument  are  alike 
without  foundation  ?  With  the  Orthodox,  the  explanation  is  easy  and 
satisfactory.  The  Thessalonians  were  chiefly  converts  from  pagan- 
ism; few,  perhaps  none  of  them,  knew  any  thing  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment. The  allegorical  interpretation  would  have  been  wholly  out  of 
place  in  an  epistle  to  such  converts,  and  the  occasion  did  not  so  much 
call  for  argument  as  exhortation.  The  epistle  to  the  Galatian 
churches,  was  occasioned  by  Judaizing  teachers,  who  had  crept  in, 
corrupting  the  truth.  In  these  churches  there  seems  to  have  been  a 
mixture  of  Jews  and  Gentiles,  the  latter,  probably,  much  the  most 
numerous.  This  epistle  was  addressed  to  just  such  persons.  Is 
there  any  thing  wonderful  in  this,  that  an  inspired  and  divinely- 
guided  apostle,  whether  in  the  earlier  or  in  the  latter  part  of  his  min- 
istry, should  adapt  his  speeches,  letters,  and  arguments,  to  the  cha- 
racter, condition,  and  capacity  of  those  addressed  .'  That  in  addressing 
an  Athenian  audience  on  the  Areopagus,  he  should  appeal  to  a 
Grecian  poet,  in  confirmation  of  his  own  sentiments,  while  Isaiah  and 
David  are  left  unnoticed  ?  That  in  addressing  the  "  men  of  Israel  " 
in  their  own  synagogue  at  Antioch,  he  should  appeal  to  the  scriptures 
which  were  there  read  every  Sabbath  day,  and  with  which  he  had 
been  familiar  from  childhood  ?  That  he  should  appeal  to  these  scrip- 
tures in  the  very  manner  in  which  his  auditors  were  wont  to  appeal 
to  them  ?  That  in  addressing  the  Thessalonians,  he  should  write  to 
them  "  as  without  the  law";  while,  in  addressing  the  Hebrews,  he 
should  write  to  them  as  those  who  had  been  under  the  law,  and  knew 
ail  its  rites,  its  ceremonies,  and  its  observances  ?  That  he,  who  at  one 
time  could  claim  his  right  by  avowing,  "  I  am  a  Roman,"  should  also  at 
another,  addressing  "  his  kinsmen  according  to  the  flesh,"  prove  that 
he  was  "  an  Hebrew  of  the  Hebrews"  ?  If  an  author  is  not  to  be 
confined  to  one  class  of  topics,  and  one  mode  of  illustration,  if  he 
may  adapt  his  mode  of  reasoning  to  the  persons  and  the  circum- 
stances of  the  persons  addressed,  then  the  wide  difference,  on 
which  the  essayist  reposes  his  argument,  is  a  dream  of  his  own 
imagination,  and  nothing  else.  For  it  is  generally  believed,  that 
this  difference  is  most  wide  between  his  speech  as  recorded  in 
the  Acts,  and  the  first  epistle  he  ever  wrote  ;  and  the  argument,  if  it 
prove  any  thing,  (I  beg  the  reader  to  mark  this,)  will  prove,  either 
that  he  did  not  write  the  first  epistle  to  the  Thessalonians,  or  did 
not  deliver  the  speech  recorded  in  the  thirteeenth  of  Acts.  The 
essayist  can  take  his  choice,  which  he  seems  already  to  have  done  by 
implication,  and  necessary  inference,  rejecting  the  latter.  Unless  I 
greatly  err,  the  unprejudiced  reader  will  believe  that  he  delivered  the 


119 

one,  and  wrote  the  other,  and  that  the  essayist's  elaborate  argument 
is  straw-built,  and  tunables  not  so  much  through  its  weight,  as  its 
weakness ;  not  so  much  through  the  strength  of  its  assailant,  as  the 
insufficiency  of  its  foundation,  and  the  feebleness  of  its  defence.* 

In  that  state  of  things  to  which  the  essayist's  argument  would 
bring  us,  to  whom,  to  what,  can  we  go,  "  having  the  words  of  eternal 
life"  ?  To  this  question,  another  writer  in  the  same  Examiner  has, 
by  rather  a  noticeable  coincidence,  unwittingly  supplied  an  answer. 
I  look  upon  this  essayist  and  this  reviewer,  (whom  I  thus  name  for 
distinction  sake,)  as  having  given  us  the  strength  and  the  set  of  the 
Unitarian  current,  far  more  fully  and  unequivocally,  than  has  before 
been  done,  and  more  so  than  they  individually  intended.  But  opin- 
ion, like  murder,  will  out.  In  the  review  of  Dick's  Christian  Philos- 
opher, there  is  much  truth,  beautifully  expressed,  happily  illustrated, 
and  forcibly  applied.  There  are  also  expressions  symptomatic  of  a 
disquiet  spirit,  of  a  heart  ill  at  ease,  as  yet  all  unconscious  of  the 
heights  and  the  depths,  the  length  and  the  breadth  of  the  unsearcha- 
ble riches  in  Christ  Jesus,  which  break  upon  the  soul  that  receives 
and  loves  the  Saviour  as  participent  of  our  nature,  and  "  God  mani- 
fest in  the  flesh,"  at  once  "  the  root  and  the  offspring  of  David," 
a  descendant  of  Abraham  as  to  his  humanity,  and  "  God  over  all, 
blessed  forever." 

Nature,  without  revelation,  has  always  been  considered  "  a  sealed 
book."  But  according  to  the  argument  of  the  essayist,  just  examin- 
ed, we  have  little  or  no  revelation,  or  at  all  events,  we  must  be  in 
great  doubt  as  to  what  this  revelation  is.  I  do  not  wish  to  over- 
charge this  statement.  Is  it  not  the  truth,  and  is  it  any  thing  more 
than  the  truth,  that  a  Unitarian,  who  adopts  the  opinions  and  the  rea- 
soning of  the  essayist,  must  be  in  great  doubt  as  to  what  revelation 
is  ?  In  this  state  of  darkness,  into  which  one  Unitarian  writer  leads 
and  leaves  us,  another  takes  us.  He  says,  page  24  of  the  same 
Examiner,  "  we  often  need  something  more  direct,  and  immediate, 
and  palpable,  than  the  feelings  and  sentiments,  which  we  have  de- 
rived from  written  knowledge,  v/hich,  however  sublime  and  glorious 
in  itself,  has  been  conveyed  to  us,  through  the  fallible  medium  of 
written  languages  and  translations  of  languages."     Let  not  this  writer 

*  In  replying  to  the  argument  of  the  essayist,  and  showing  its  fallacy,  I  have  not 
thought  it  necessary  to  call  in  question  his  assertions  relative  to  the  allegorical  use 
of  the  Old  Testament,  &c.  by  the  writer  to  the  Hebrews.  Granting  all  that  he 
assumes  on  this  subject, his  argument  is  still  entirely  without  weight.  The  reader, 
desirous  of  understanding  the  manner  in  which  passages  are  quoted  from  the  Old 
Testament  by  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament,  will  find  much  valuable  informa- 
tion in  the  Commentary  by  Prof.  Stuart,  especially  in  the  last  Excursus.  Consult 
also  a  Lecture  delivered  and  published  by  Dr.  Woods  on  this  subject.  Seo  also 
The  Spirit  of  the  Pilgrims,  Vol.  I.  No.  9.  p.  478. 


120 

think  that  any  objection  is  raised  against  the  study  of  the  works  of 
God,  while  a  solemn  protest  is  entered  against  such  a  view  of  the 
Word  of  God.  Chalmers  would  have  written  thus,  when  abroad  on 
his  botanical  excursions,  or  engaged  in  his  laboratory,  for  the  first 
ten  years  of  his  ministry.  During  the  last  fifteen  years,  he  has  not 
forgotten  his  previous  acquisitions,  nor  overlooked  the  obligations 
of  science  to  Christianity,  while  he  has  found  the  Bible  to  be  "  a 
storehouse  of  unworked  materials,"  from  which  to  bring  out,  for  the 
certain  instruction  of  man,  and  the  glory  of  God,  "things  new  and 
old."  Dwight,  and  Payson,  men  of  no  ordinary  grade,  in  whom  taste 
and  learning  and  piety  were  happily  blended,  would  have  given  their 
right  hand  to  the  flame,  ere  a  sentence  like  that  should  have  dropped 
from  their  pen.  What?  Has  it  come  to  this?  For  the  instruction 
of  our  ignorance,  for  the  strengthening  of  our  faith,  for  the  consola- 
tion of  our  sorrows,  for  the  support  of  our  spirits  when  hovering  over 
the  unfathomable  abyss,  whence  none  return,  are  we  to  quit  the 
written  word  of  God,  the  everlasting  gospel  of  his  Son,  which  shall 
not  fail  though  heaven  and  earth  pass  away,  and  take  in  its  stead  the 
hieroglyphics  of  nature,  which  the  wisest  and  the  best  of  heathen 
sages  pronounced  indecipherable  ?  No  wonder  this  reviewer  should 
elsewhere  add, "  there  are  hours,  we  suspect,  in  the  Ufe  of  every  man, 
in  which  it  seems  to  him  as  if  the  foundations  of  truth  and  faith  were 
breaking  up  around  him,  and  his  hopes  were  to  be  confounded  and 
defeated.*  These  are  indeed  sad  and  gloomy  hours,  when  all  that 
we  have  believ'ed,  and  all  that  we  have  hoped,  seems  fading  away 
in  dim  and  distant  uncertainty.  Yet  he  must  be  either  a  very  firm  and 
enlightened,  or  else  a  very  thoughtless  man,  who  does  not  sometimes 
experience  feelings  like  these."     p.  19. 

"  What  can  we  reason  but  from  what  we  know  ? " 

If  such  be  Unitarianism,  that  it  unsettles  the  canon  of  sacred 
books,  and  shakes  the  foundations  of  faith,  and  truth,  and  hope,  as 
it  would  seem  from  the  concurring  testimony  of  the  essayist  and  the 
reviewer,  truly  may  the  poor  and  ignorant,  aye,  and  the  wise  and  the 
wealthy,  and  the  great  of  the  world  too,  say,  "  0  my  soul,  come  not 
thou  into  their  secret ;  unto  their  assembly,  mine  honor,  be  not  thou 
united !" 

In  concluding  this  note,  I  will  only  add,  that  whatever  may  be 
thought  of  the  essayist's  argument,  of  the  analysis  here  given  of  it, 

*  It  is  necessary  to  state  a  distinction  of  great  importance,  which  the  Reviewer 
has  not  noticed.  The  truly  pious  man  may,  and  often  does  tremble,  lest,  a  promise 
being  left,  he  should  fail,  through  his  own  fault,  of  attaining  to  the  heavenly  rest. 
But  the  foundations  of  truth  and  faith  remain  unshaken,  a.gd.insl  which  the  gates 
of  hell  shall  not  prevail. 


121 

or  of  the  reviewer's  assertions,  this  is  plain,  the  epistle  to  the  He- 
brews is  no  longer  to  be  received  by  the  Unitarians  as  apart  of  the 
inspired  Word  of  God.  It  has  been  pronounced,  ex  cathedra,  un- 
canonical,  unintelligible,  absurd.  No  Unitarian  has  yet  whispered  a 
surmise  that  the  argument,  so  called,  of  the  essayist,  is  not  conclusive 
and  satisfactory.  The  Orthodox,  be  it  known,  are  not  prepared  to 
renounce  this  "  foundation  of  truth  and  hope  ";  they  do  not  feel  that 
it  has  been  shaken ;  knowing  the  ground  on  which  it  rests,  they 
have  no  fears  that  it  ever  will  be.  But,  we  may  be  permitted  to  ask, 
will  Unitarian  clergymen  continue  to  read  this  apocryphal  Bel-and- 
Dragon  epistle  from  their  pulpits,  and  in  their  families,  without  in- 
forming their  hearers  distinctly,  that  it  is  not  properly  a  part  of  the 
Word  of  God,  is  not  of  inspired  authority,  and  is  read  only  as  the 
Shepherd  of  Hermas  might  be,  or  any  other  merely  human  production  ? 
After  such  an  explanation,  it  might  be  read  honestly.  Can  it  be 
without  it  ?  Do  Unitarians  read  1  John,  v.  7  ?  If  they  do,  are  they 
not  careful  to  tell  their  people  that  "it  is  an  interpolation,"  though 
something  may  be  said  in  its  behalf?  Is  it  not  required  of  them,  if 
they  would  sustain  a  character  for  consistent  honesty,  to  inform  their 
hearers  that  the  whole  epistle  to  the  Hebrews  is  of  no  more  author- 
ity than  this  much  disputed  verse,  since  the  Corj-pheus  of  the  Unita- 
rian chorus  has  informed  a  select  literary  audience  that  nothing  can 
be  said  in  favor  cf  the  Pauline  origin  or  canonical  authority  of  this 
epistle  ? 

"WTiy,  it  may  be  asked  in  sober  earnestness,  should  not  this  epistle 
give  'place  to  Robinson  Crusoe,  "  the  reasoning  of  which  "  can  "  he 
regarded  as  of  great  force  by  an  intelligent  reader  of  the  present  day  "? 
"  It  is,  moreover,"  not  "  difiicult  so  far  to  accommodate  our  minds  to 
the  conceptions  and  principles  of  the  writer,  as  to  perceive  how  it 
was  adapted  to  produce  great  effect  at  the  time  it  was  written ;"  all 
of  which  is  denied  by  the  essayist  in  regard  to  this  mystical,  illogical 
misplaced  epistle.  Surely  Unitarians,  coinciding  in  the  views  of  this 
writer,  must  allow  that  Robinson  Crusoe  or  Gulliver's  Travels  have 
a  better  right,  have  a  stronger  and  more  rational  claim,  to  be  read  from 
the  pulpit,  being  written  on  rational  principles  and  for  intelligible 
purposes,  than  this  incomprehensible  jargon,  so  long  and  ignorant- 
ly  revered  as  an  inspired  epistle  to  the  Hebrews.  In  the  next  '•  Im- 
proved Version  "  shall  this  epistle  have  a  place  ?  Will  not  Mr.  Pal- 
frey exclude  it  from  his  text  according  to  Griesbach  ?  No  matter  for 
opposition  from  the  ignorant,  and  the  bigoted,  and  the  irrational. 
Trutli,  truth  will  finally  prevail.  Let  this  be  the  course  with  those, 
who  profess  to  hold  in  their  hands  the  torch  of  science,  and  to  gaze 


122 

with  undazzled,  eagle  eye,  on  the  Sun  of  Truth.  Let  not  the  modern 
Reformers,  emulous  of  perfecting  the  work  of  Luther,  shrink  from 
the  task. 

We  have  now  an  entering  wedge  by  which  we  may  hope  to  obtain 
Unitarian  notions  of  the  inspiration  and  authority  of  the  several  books 
of  the  New  Testament.  Though,  according  to  the  argument  of  the 
learned  essayist,  the  epistles  of  James  and  Jude  compose  the  Unita- 
rian canon,  it  may  be  doubted  whether  the  latter  of  these  will  not 
be  the  very  book  first  to  follow  the  fate  of  that  to  the  Hebrews.  The 
reverence  of  English  Unitarians  for  the  epistle  of  Jude  has  been  al- 
ready seen.  The  Christian  Examiner  will  not  yield  to  the  Monthly 
Repository  in  intelligence,  and  will  not  long  continue  more  "illiberal, " 
or  less  "  rational."  It  may  be  questioned  whether  any  further  bene- 
fit is  to  be  obtained  by  the  longer  concealment  of  Unitarian  views. 
Unitarians  must  feel  that  the  time  has  come,  when  strength  of  argument 
and  not  ingenuity  of  artifice  must  decide  where  is  truth  and  what  is 
error.  This  reflecting  community  requires  reasons,  and  not  preju- 
dices ;  arguments,  and  not  assertions  ;  proofs,  and  not  assumptions  of 
the  points  to  be  proved.  It  may  be  said,  then,  with  propriety  to  all 
parties,  '  bring  forth  your  strong  arguments  plainly ,  fairly ,  and  for- 
cibly. If  Unitarianism  be  true,  let  Unitarianism  prevail ;  if  Ortho- 
doxy be  true,  let  Orthodoxy  prevail ;  or  if  any  intermediate  system  be 
true,  let  that  prevail.'  In  the  mean  time,  it  need  only  be  said,  that 
Orthodoxy,  like  Revelation,  does  not  fear  examination  of  any  kind.  It 
invites,  it  has  endured,  and  it  can  endure,  the  severest  test.  It  only 
asks  that  men  will  examine  it,  will  do  it  justice  without  prejudice, 
without  partiality,  and  without  favour. 

Fiat  Veritas,  ruat  caelum. 


NOTEE.    PageU. 

The  first  step  to  become  a  "  rational "  believer  would  seem  to  be, 
to  renounce  reason  ;  after  that,  one  can  reason  himself  into  the  be- 
lief of  any  thing  however  absurd,  and  out  of  the  belief  of  any  truth 
however  certain.  The  freethinkers  of  England,  the  atheists  of 
France,  and  the  philosophizing  divines  of  Germany,  would  afford 
abundant  evidence  of  this.  Whether  cis-atlantic  rationalism  has 
altered  its  character  by  changing  its  place,  those  who  are  competent 


123 

can  decide.  The  philosophers  of  Germany  are  waiting,  it  is  said, 
with  an  anxiety  unusual  to  that  meditative  race,  for  a  full  dcvclope- 
ment  of  Schelling's  philosophical  system.  In  this  vicinity,  a  some- 
what similar  anxiety  is  felt  by  many,  to  know  what  course  "  rational" 
opinion  is  ultimately  to  take.  The  young  divines  are  placed  in  a 
predicament,  which  they  must,  at  times,  feel  to  be  awkward.  To  go 
back,  they  cannot ;  "  facilis  descensus  averni ;  sed  revocare,"  &c : 
to  stand  still  is  impossible,  amid  the  increasing  light  of  an  improving 
age  ;  to  go  forward  is  perilous.  Many  eyes  are  upon  them.  Hith- 
erto the  wind  has  been  what  the  sailors  call  baffling  ;  whether,  here- 
after, we  are  to  have  "  steady  gales,"  setting  from  "  the  frozen  zone 
of  Christianity,"  on  the  icebergs  of  avowed  rationaUsm  or  open  infi- 
delity, it  were  premature  to  say.     Time  will  show. 


NOTE  F.    Page  67. 

PRTESTL.EY,    EICHHORX,  CALVIX. 

The  celebrated  Cuvier  pronounced  the  eulogy  on  Dr.  Priestley 
before  the  National  Institute.  The  following  estimate  of  his  charac- 
ter is  accurate,  and,  considering  the  person  who  made  it,  and  the  au- 
dience before  which  it  was  delivered,  wonderfully  so.  "  In  fact,  his 
history  will  exhibit,  if  I  may  so  speak,  two  men  of  distinct  and  almost 
opposite  character.  The  first,  a  circumspect  philosopher,  he  exam- 
ines those  objects  alone  which  come  within  the  hmits  of  experience  ; 
employs  only  a  strict  and  cautious  mode  of  reasoning  ;  fosters  in 
his  mind  no  prejudice,  no  love  of  system ;  seeks  truth  alone,  whatever 
it  may  be,  and  seldom  fails  to  discover  truth,  and  to  establish  it  in  the 
most  solid  and  lucid  manner.  The  other,  a  daring  theologian,  rashly 
pries  into  the  greatest  mysteries ;  contemns  the  faith  of  ages  ;  rejects 
the  most  revered  authorities  ;  commences  disputant  with  precon- 
ceived ideas,  which  he  endeavors  to  extend  rather  than  to  examine, 
and  to  support  which,  he  falls  into  the  most  contradictory  hypothe- 
ses.'' The  whole  character  is  drawn  in  the  same  discriminating 
manner.  Had  it  been  Dr.  Chalmers,  instead  of  Cuvier,  who  gave 
this  view  of  Dr.  Priestley's  character  and  efforts,  it  would  have  been 
branded  as  Calvinistic  bigotry.  As  it  is,  we  believe  the  admirers  of 
Dr.  Priestley  are  quite  willing  to  foi-get  the  impartial  estimate  of  the 


124 

French  philosopher.  The  whole  eulogy  exhibits  evidence  that 
while  Cuvier  admired  the  talents,  he  understood  the  character  of 
Priestley. 

The  following  account  of  the  life,  labors,  and  death  of  a  man  not 
less  distinguished,  will  be  interesting  to  many  readers.  It  is  mostly 
from  the  Foreign  Review  and  Continental  Miscellany.  /.  G. 
Eidihorn  was  born  1752,  in  the  principaUty  of  HohenzoUern  Oehrin- 
gen.  His  theory,  as  to  the  origin  of  the  gospels,  and  the  controver- 
sies springing  out  of  it,  it  would  be  out  of  place  to  detail.  His 
various  and  immense  learning,  and  indefatigable  labors,  may  be 
judged  of  by  a  partial  enumeration  of  his  works.  History  of  Litera- 
ture from  the  beginning  to  the  latest  times,  11  vols.  General  History 
of  Cultivation  and  Literature  of  Modern  Europe,  2  vols.  History  of 
Eloquence  in  the  Modern  Languages,  3  vols.  History  of  the  three 
last  Centuries,  6  vols.  General  Library  of  Biblical  Literature,  10 
vols.  Repertory  of  Biblical  and  Oriental  Literature,  18  vols.  Intro- 
duction to  the  Old  Testament,  5  vols. ;  and  Introduction  to  the  New 
Testament,  5  vols.  The  last  two  volumes  of  this  Introduction  were 
finished  but  a  short  time  before  his  death.  Besides  these  works, 
which  he  either  wrote  or  edited,  he  also  translated  the  Hebrew 
Prophets.  In  a  proem  prefixed  to  this  translation,  he  ranks  Isaiah, 
Jeremiah,  &,c.  with  Orpheus,  Pythagoras,  and  other  heathen  vates. 
He  died  June  25,  1827,  at  Gottingen,  where  he  had  resided  thirty- 
nine  years  as  a  Professor.  "  From  the  gradual  decline  of  his 
strength,  he  felt  the  approach  of  death  with  the  most  imperturbable 
tranquillity ;  and  he  remarked  in  the  last  hour  to  his  friend,  the 
anatomist  Languenbeck,  and  the  celebrated  Professor  Blumenbach, 
as  a  point  of  physiological  curiosity,  how  he  felt  by  degrees  the  vital 
spirit  withdrawing  from  the  different  parts  of  the  body,  and  only  a 
quarter  of  an  hour  before  he  breathed  his  last,  he  distinctly  stated  that 
life  was  becoming  extinct  in  the  spina  dorsi."  If  Eichhorn  did  not 
survive  his  reputation,  he  lived  long  enough  to  see  that  it  would  be 
any  thing  but  reputable,  with  a  generation  not  far  distant. 

When  a  Unitarian  writer  wishes  to  blunt  an  argument,  or  an  orator 
desires  to  awaken  a  prejudice,  there  is  a  standing  illustration  always 
ready,  with  which 

"To  point  his  moral  and  adorn  his  tale," 
Calvin  burnt  Servetus.  How  it  will  follow  from  this,  that  Socinus  was 
born  without  any  taint  of  original  corruption  ;  or  that  Davidies  was  not 
in  the  right  to  withhold  worship  from  a  being  whom  he  deemed  a 
creature  merely,  the  gentleman,  who  visited  Geneva  and  "  reported 
progress"  of  rational  Christianity  among  those,  who  sit  in  Calvin's 


125 

seat,  did  not  inform  the  Unitarian  Association.     The  following  char- 
acter of  that  champion  of  the  reformation  deserves  attention. 

"  Let  Calvin's  unimpeachable  integrity  ;  his  exalted  sanctity  ;  his 
firm  stand  for  truth ;  the  salutary  and  wide-spread  influence  of  his 
personal  labors,  and  his  admirable  writings ;  let  these  be  fairly  esti- 
mated, and  we  shall  hear  rather  less,  than  we  have  of  late  been  ac- 
customed to  hear,  ignorantly  re-echoed,  of  the  one  deep  blot  on  an 
else  spotless  name.  The  dreadful  punishment  inflicted  on  Servetus 
■was  in  compliance  with  the  notions  of  the  time  ;  but  a  man  like 
Calvin,  we  admit,  should  have  been  superior  to  the  errors  of  his  age. 
It  was  defended  by  a  mistaken  application  of  scripture  authority,  but 
Calvin  should  have  better  known  the  character  of  his  sanction.  His 
act  was  in  the  stern  spirit  of  the  law,  while  his  creed  and  his  chris- 
tian experience  should  have  referred  him  to  a  more  merciful  dispen- 
sation. But  let  it  not  be  forgotten,  that  he  had  no  personal  end  to 
serve  ;  that  if  there  ever  lived  an  individual  above  all  imputation  of 
priestcraft  and  hypocrisy,  Calvin  was  the  man  ;  and  that,  although 
an  act  of  unrelenting  severity  was  perpetrated,  it  was  not  done  in 
wantonness  of  cruelty,  nor  in  the  lust  of  power,  but  in  erroneous 
deference  to  principles  and  prescriptions,  which  even  in  our  own 
times  and  in  enUghtened  countries,  retain  a  strong  grasp  on  the 
prejudices  of  men." 

The  conduct  of  Calvin  in  regard  to  Servetus,  admits  of  no  justifica- 
tion, and  scarcely  of  apology.  But  why  Unitarians  should  bestow^ 
all  their  sympathies  upon  Servetus,  and  "  remember  to  forget"' 
Davidies,  venting  all  their  antipathies  upon  Calvin  to  the  entire 
exclusion  of  Socinus  and  his  friend  Blandrata,  is  somewhat  myste- 
rious, if  their  object  be,  in  so  often  producing  this  illustration,  to 
express  their  hatred  of  persecution,  and  their  love  of  liberal  principles 
and  free  inquiry.  To  awaken  jnejudke  is  not  to  infix  principle. 
Unitarian  orators  seem  well  aware  of  the  fact,  that  most  people  rea- 
son with  their  ears.  At  least  their  arguments  are  built  on  this  "  au- 
ricular confession."  If  Unitarianism,  whether  in  its  larger  or  more 
limited  sense,  be  true,  it  must  be  proved  so  by  some  better  argument 
than  "  Calvin  burnt  Servetus."  It  is  unworthy  the  taste  of  Dr. 
Channing  and  the  learning  of  Mr.  Palfrey,  to  harangue  in  this  style 
of  bar-room  declamation. 

If  Unitarians  mean  to  insinuate  that  those,  who  are  now  called  Cal- 
vinists  in  this  country,  are  desirous  of  imitating  the  conduct  of  Cal- 
vin in  this  instance,  without  stopping  to  notice  the  enlarged  "  liberal- 
ity" of  the  insinuation,  may  we  be  permitted  to  ask  whether  Dr.  Prince, 
11 


126 

or  Dr.  Bolles,  or  Mr.  Emerson,  is  answerable  for  the  scenes  exhibited 
on  "  Gallows  Hill,"  a  century  ago  .'  Are  Judge  Story  and  Mr.  Salton- 
stall  disposed  to  hang  witches  .'  By  what  exuberance  of  liberality,  we 
desire  to  know,  are  the  Andover  Professors  held  accountable  for  the 
reprehensible  conduct  of  Calvin,  three  centuries  ago  ?  May  we  be 
permitted  "  to  call  for  information,"  and  request  any  intelligent  gentle- 
man to  inform  us  what  special  purpose  they  expect  to  accomplish  by 
this  frequent  rhetorical  flourish  ?  In  the  mean  time  we  take  the  lib- 
erty of  adding  the  following  facts.  Teulmin,  no  friend  of  Calvin  and 
no  enemy  to  Socinus,  in  his  Life  of  the  latter,  speaking  of  Cranrner, 
Luther,  Calvin,  and  Socinus,  says,  "  they  all  erred  in  regard  to  Tol- 
eration," "  it  should,  however,  rather  be  ascribed  to  the  times  than 
the  men,  that  they  favored  in  one  respect  or  another,  intolerance 
or  persecution."  Let  those  who  possess,  as  well  as  profess,  liberality 
of  sentiment,  meditate  upon  this  remark  of  the  biographer  of  Soci- 
nus, and  say,  whether  it  is  perfectly  fair  and  just  to  the  memory  of 
the  Genevan  Reformer,  without  any  reference  to  his  merits,  his  at- 
tiinments,  or  his  efforts,  thus  to  hold  him  up  to  perpetual  scorn,  while 
the  circumstances  of  the  age,  and  the  feelings  and  conduct  of  his  con- 
temporaries, are  studiously  concealed  ?  When  the  character  of  Soci- 
nus is  drawn,  is  that  trait  of  it,  explained  and  modified  by  Toulmin, 
its  leading,  prominent  feature  ?  In  what  Unitarian  imagination  is  not 
Calvin  painted  as  only  the  gloomy,  iron-hearted,  relentless  persecutor  ? 
Why,  we  ask  again,  and  desire  every  Unitarian  writer  and  declaimer 
before  penning  another  sentence,  or  rounding  another  period,  to  an- 
swer the  question,  why  is  not  Davidies  entitled  to  as  much  conimis- 
seration  in  Boston,  as  Servetus  ?  The  plain  truth  is,  that  both  Cal- 
vin and  Socinus  deserve  reprehension.  "  Call  no  man  master,  for 
one  is  your  master,  even  Christ."  Imitate  Paul  only  so  far  as  he 
imitated  Christ.  Neither  Abraham,  nor  David,  nor  Peter,  nor  Calvin, 
is  the  exemplar  of  Christian  perfection.  Yet  what  Unitarian  would 
hazard  his  reputation  for  liberality  by  dwelling  only,  or  chiefly,  on 
the  faults  of  the  three  names  first  mentioned?  Why  not  treat  Cal- 
vin with  the  same  impartial  justice  as  others,  who  either  through  re- 
maining imperfections  of  nature,  or  the  prescriptions  of  prejudice, 
fell  into  similar  or  equal  faults  ?  Really  liberal  men,  of  every  denomi- 
nation, need  only  have  this  subject  presented  in  its  proper  light,  to 
gilence  all  the  slang  about  ■"  Calvin  burnt  Servetus."  I  would 
not  have  dwelt  so  long  upon  a  topic,  in  itself  so  unimportant,  but 
that  the  frequent  recurrence  to  it  in  Unitarian  sermons,  periodicals, 
pamphlets,  speeches,  &c.,  has  made  it  necessaiy,  both  in  justice  to  the 
illustrious  reformer.,  and  to  those  who  are   now  called  Calvinists. 


127 

Thus  far  I  have  merely  acted  an  the  defensive,  and  exposed  the  hol- 
lowuess  of  the  Unitarian  insinuation  attempted  to  be  conveyed  by  the 
unreflecting  repetition  of,  "  Calvin  burnt  Servetus."  Were  it  neces- 
sary, the  state  of  things  in  Switzerland  in  the  nineteenth  century, 
opens  a  field,  which  strongly  invites  offensive  operations.  Geneva 
would  present  much,  and  the  Canton  of  Vaud  more,  for  thoughtful 
consideration,  especially  contrasted  with  the  present  state  of  Eng- 
land. If  the  theology  of  Dr.  Ware's  Letters  be  liberal  and  rational, 
the  theolagy  of  the  Canton  of  Vaud  is  liberal  and  rational.  In  both 
cases,  and  in  that  of  Geneva  also,  it  rs  anti-calvinistic.  In  regard  to 
the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  so  far  as  I  can  learn,  that  is  still  held  in 
the  Canton  of  Vaud,  but  it  is  a  solitary  column  of  a  once  fur  fabric 
already  tottering  to  its  fall.  All  the  connected  doctrines,  which  con- 
stitute what  is  here  called  the  Orthodox  system,  have  long  since  been 
given  up.  Why,  then,  should  a  writer  in  the  Christian  Examiner 
call  the  Canton  of  Vaud  an  "  Orthodox  Canton  "?  The  term  Ortho- 
dox, in  Boston,  has  a  settled  meaning,  and  when  used  by  a  Unitarian, 
is  of  necessity  supposed  to  express  that  meaning,  unless  otherwise 
explained.  Did  not  this  writer  know  that  the  Canton  of  Vaud  is  not 
*'  Orthodox,"  in  the  sense  in  which  his  readers  understand  that  word  ? 
If  he  did  not,  "  it  is  a  shame  for  him  to  write  so  confidently  "  on  a 
subject  he  does  not  understand.  If  he  did,  we  allow  him  to  select  the 
epithet  appropriate  to  the  deed.  If  he  meant  by  Orthodox,  what  is  so 
called  in  England,  he  should,  in  all  fairness,  have  said  so.  In  that 
case,  it  means  anti-calvinistic,  the  complete  antipodes  of  Orthodox 
in  New  England  ;  just  what  is  here  understood  by  Unitarian,  in 
contradistinction  from  Evangelical.  T%e  Mummers  of  Geneva 
and  the  Canton  of  Vaud  have  been  ridiculed,  or  silenced,  or 
iinprisoned,  or  banished,  simply  and  solely,  because  they  preached 
distinctly  and  heartily  the  doctrines  here  held  to  be  Orthodox; 
and  were  so  exceedingly  zealous  as  to  hold  night  meetings,  and 
to  read  the  Bible,  four  or  Jive  of  them  together,  and  to  pray  over 
it  for  divine  illumination.  This  we  assert,  and  stand  ready  to 
prove,  was  the  head  and  front  of  their  offending  in  liberal,  rational, 
anti-calvinistic  Switzerland.  Amphigouri  would  seem  not  confined 
to  the  Genevan  clergy. 

Look  at  England  for  a  moment.  The  House  of  Commons  has  re- 
cently astounded  Mr.  Peel  and  the  High  Church  party,  by  a  large 
majority  for  the  repeal  of  the  Corporation  and  Test  Acts,  and  by  a 
majority  for  removing  Catholic  disabilities.  How  happens  this  ? 
Who  does  not  know  that,  for  the  last  thirty  years,  the  Evangelical 
party  in  the  Church  and  among  the  Dissenters  has  been  rapidly  in- 


128 

creasing,  while  the  Arminian  party  has  been  diminishing  ?  The  re- 
sult is  seen  in  the  late  votes  in  the  House  of  Commons,  the  members 
of  which  might  be,  and  the  great  majority  of  them,  probably,  are, 
wholly  ignorant  of  the  origin  of  that  public  sentiment  of  which  they 
are  merely  the  organ.  Bible,  and  Missionary,  and  Tract,  and  Educa- 
tion Societies,  and  Sabbath  schools  are  at  once  raising  heathen  na- 
tions to  the  rank  of  Christians,  and  casting  off  shackles  that  have  too 
Jong  encumbered  Christians  in  the  land  of  our  Fathers.  These  insti- 
tutions, be  it  remembered,  are  principally  Evangelical  in  their  origin, 
their  character,  their  influence,  and  their  support. 

If  the  history  of  religious  sects  and  opinions  establishes  one  fact,  it 
is  this,  to  which  we  particularly  invite  philosophical  Unitarian  minds. 
Evangelical  sentiments  have  ever  favored  civil  liberty.  So  true  is 
the  text  and  the  exposition  of  the  text,  by  Prof.  Stuart,  "  where  the 
Spirit  of  the  Lord  is,  there  is  liberty."  The  character  and  influence 
of  the  Puritans,  as  exhibited  in  the  Edinburgh  Review  of  Milton's 
Theological  Treatise,  arrested  attention,  and  commanded  universal 
approbation.  I  would  suggest  to  the  reflecting  Unitarian,  as  a  sub- 
ject of  curious  investigation,  the  comparative  influence  and  tendency 
of  Calvinistic  or  Evangelical  sentiments  ia  England,  and  of  Liberal 
sentiments  in  Switzerland. 

The  defection  of  Geneva  from  Evangelical  sentiments,  has  been  a 
subject  of  no  slight  rejoicing  in  this  quarter.  The  mode,  the  cir- 
cumstances, the  consequences,  have  not  been  so  much  dwelt  upon. 
We  have  no-t  time  nor  space  for  detail  here.  We  wish,  however,  to 
present  a  specimen  of  Unitarian  "  established"  liberality.  "  The 
Venerable  Compagnie,"  require  all  candidates  for  the  ministry  to 
sign  a  promise  to  abstain  from  expressing  their  opinions,  either  by  a 
discourse,  or  part  of  a  discourse,  [Unitarians  can  be  definite  if 
necessary ,^]  upon  these  topics—"  1.  The  manner  in  which  the  divine 
nature  is  united  to  the  person  of  Christ.  2.  Original  sin.  3.  Effica- 
cious grace.  4.  Predestination."  One  would  think  this  enough. — 
Not  so  the  Venerable  Company.  The  candidates  must  also  promise 
"  not  to  ojjpose  the  opinions  of  any  of  the  pastors."  The  Venerable 
Company,  in  these  few  "  promise  nets,"  beat  the  Bishop  of  Peter- 
borough with  his  eighty-seven  questions,  out  and  out.  In  England,  the 
Bishop  was  met  with  a  public  frown,  from  which  he  soon  fled.  Not 
so  in  liberal  Geneva.  A  writer  upon  the  spot  well  observes,  upon 
this  Venerable  Company  ;  "  Self-contradictory  men,  who  renounced 
a  profession  of  faith,  and  forced  subscription  to  promises ;  who 
mocked  at  ancient  formulai'ies,  and  established  new  ones  ;  who  de- 
clared that  the  spirit  of  the  reformation  was  a  spirit  of  liberty,  and 


129 

chained  up  instruction."  Yet  the  Christian  Disciple  and  the  Chris- 
tian . .  .aminer,  published  in  Boston,  United  States  of  North  America, 
volunteer  apologies  for  the  Venerable  Company. 


NOTE  G.  Page  74. 
References  to  passages  of  the  New  Testament,  exclusive  of  the 
Apocalypse,  which  relate  to  evil  spirits.  Matthew,  iv.  1 — 11,  24. 
viii.  16,  2S— 34.  ix.  32—34.  x.  1,  8.  xii.  22—29,  43—45.  xiii. 
IS,  19,  24—30,  36—39.  xv.  21—28.  xvi.  23.  xvii.  14—21.  xxv. 
41.  Mark,  i.  13,  23,  27,  32,  34,  39.  iil.  11,  13,  14,  22—27.  iv. 
14,  15,  24.  v.  1—20.  vi.  7,  13.  vii.  24—30.  ix.  17—29,  38—40. 
xvi.  9.  Luke,  iv.  1—13,  33—36,  40,  41.  vi.  18.  vii.  21,  22. 
viii.  12,  26—36.  ix.  1,  37—42,  49,  50.  x.  17—20.  xi.  14—26. 
xiii.  16,  32.  xxii.  31.  John,  vi.  70.  xii.  31.  xiii.  2,  27.  xiv.  30. 
xvi.  11.  Acts,  V.  3.  \nri.  7.  x.  38.  xiii.  10.  xix.  12—16.  xxvi. 
18.  On  the  narrative  contained  xvi.  16 — 18,  see  Storr,  vol.  ii.  p.  26. 
Romans,  xvi.  20.  1  Cor.  v.  5.  vii.  5,  x.  20,  21.  2  Cor.  ii.  11. 
iv.  3,  4.  vi.  15.  xi.  3,  14,  15.  xii.  7.  Eph.  ii.  2.  iv.  27.  vi. 
10—18.  Coll.  i.  13.  ii.  15.  1  Thess.  ii.  18.  iii.  5.  2  Thess.  ii.  9. 
1  Tim.  iv.  1.     V.  14,  15.     2  Tim.  ii.  26.     Heb.  ii.  14.    James,  ii.  19. 

IV.  7.     1  Peter,  v.  8.     2  Peter,  ii.  4—11.     1  John,  ii.  13.     iii.  8—12. 

V.  18.     Jude,  6—9. 

By  Christ  himself,  by  the  eight  writers  of  the  New  Testament,  in 
sixty-seven  different  chapters,  and  in  more  than  two  hundred  verses, 
the  personal  existence  and  agency  of  "  the  devil  and  his  angels"  are 
distinctly  asserted.  Are  the  united,  explicit,  and  often  repeated  decla- 
rations of  Christ  and  his  apostles  worthy  of  credit  ?  Whose  decisioy> 
is  authoritative  and  final,  in  the  land  of  the  Pilgrims,  that  of  divine 
inspiration  or  that  of  a  self-styled  rationalism  ? 


NOTE  H.    Page  75. 

REASON ITS    PROVINCE    AND    USE.       JUDGE    STORV.. 

It  is  a  common  assertion  with  Unitarians,  that  their  system  is  more 
rational  than  the  Orthodox.  If  this  be  true,  it  is  more  worthy  of 
credit,  and  the  sooner  its  claims  are  substantiated,  the  better.  The 
following  remark  is  a  fair  specimen  of  Unitarian  assertion  on  this 
subject.  "  In  addition  to  aovelty,  it  has  the  advantage  of  claiming  a 
11* 


130 

more  intimate  alliance  with  reason  than  those  systems,  which  re- 
quire a  belief  in  doctrines  that  are  incomprehensible."  Month. 
Rep.  1806,  p.  434.  Let  us  examine  the  validity  of  this  claim.  Do 
the  Ortliodox  discard  reason  ?  Who  dare  assert  it  ?  Do  they  under- 
value reason  ?  To  answer  this  question  we  must  ask  another,  what  is 
the  legitimate  province  of  reason  ?  To  this  the  Orthodox  reply,  that 
reason  is  properly  employed,  1.  In  examining  the  evidence  of  the 
existence  of  the  Divine  Being.  2.  In  examining  the  evidence  on 
which  a  professed  revelation  of  the  divine  will  rests.  3.  In  ascer- 
taining the  authenticity  and  genuineness  of  the  documents,  which 
contain  the  truly  divine  revelation.  4.  In  investigatirtg  the  meaning 
of  these  documents  according  to  the  established  principles  of  lan- 
guage. 

The  Orthodox,  believing  the  Bible  to  be  the  Word,  and  to  con- 
tain the  will,  of  God,  profess  to  use  reason  simply  for  this  pur- 
pose, to  discover  what  the  will  of  God  is,  as  revealed  in  his 
Word.  They  conduct  the  investigation  an  principles  similar  to 
those  appUed  by  the  classical  critics  to  Homer,  Hesiod,  and 
Euripides.  These  critics,  however,  do  not  feel  bound  to  defend 
the  sentiments  of  those  writers  as  true  or  rational.  They  mere- 
ly state  them  as  they  find  them.  The  Orthodox^  on  the  other 
hand,  adopt  this  argument  of  an  able  reasoner,  "no  demonstration 
can  be  stronger  than  this,  God  hath  said  so,  therefore  it  is 
TRUE."  And  what  is  true,  they  hold  to  be  rational.  The  Orthodox, 
then,  use  their  reason  to  discover  what  God  hath  said,  not  what  he 
ought  to  say.  Unitarians,  practically  at  least,  adopt  the  latter 
course,  or  there  is  no  dispute  between  them  and  the  Orthodox  as  to 
the  principle  of  reasoning  in  this  instance.  The  course  practically 
adopted  by  Unitarians,  their  opponents  consider  bath  irrational  and 
presumptuous.  Reason  with  the  one  party  acts  as  a  judge,  deciding 
what  the  law  is  ;  with  the  other,  it  is  too  often  a  legislator,  declaring 
what  the  law  shall  be.  The  Orthodox  found  the  reasonableness  of 
their  belief,  chiefly,  on  the  declarations  of  that  God,  who  gave  them 
reason,  who  knows  the  truth,  and  cannot  lie.  What  firmer  founda- 
tion for  a  truly  rational  belief  does  the  Universe  afford  ?  Who,  then, 
make  the  proper  use  of  reason, — those,  who  submit  their  reason  to  the 
declarations  of  the  omniscient  Jehovah ;  or  those,  who  subject  the 
declarations  of  the  eternal  God  to  their  mole-eyed  reason  ?  If  it  be 
irrational  to  trust  Gad  rather  than  man,  the  Orthodox  cheerfully  sub- 
mit to  the  imputation.  It  should  be  kept  distinctly  in  mind,  that  the 
question  here,  relates  not  ta  the  interpretation  put  upon  any  passage, 
but  to  the  principle  of  interpretation,  applied  to  the  whole  sacred 


131 

volume.  Whether  the  Orthodox  interpretation  be  true,  is  a  question 
of  grammar  and  philology.  Not  only  the  lexicons  of  Gesenius  and 
Schleusner,  but  the  dictionary  of  Calmet,  may  be  properly  studied. 
But  human  philosophy  is  to  be  silent,  when  the  question  relates  to 
subjects  on  which  the  human  mind  never  had  experience.  In  this 
case,  real  philosophy  listens,  but  does  not  speak  ;  questions,  but  can- 
not answer. 

I  have  wished  here  to  reduce  tlie  subject  to  its  elements.  A  full 
discussion  is  unnecessary.  Those,  who  have  reason  and  are  disposed 
to  use  it,  will  find  this  subject  ably  discussed  in  the  appendix  to  the 
first  volume  of  Storr,  by  Prof.  Schmucker.  See  also  the  review  of 
the  Evangelical  Church  Journal,  in  the  Spirit  of  the  Pilgrims  for  April, 
1828.  The  same  subject  is  also  discussed  in  Dr.  Beecher's  sermon, 
entitled,  "  The  Bible  a  code  of  laws."*  Intelligent,  reasoning  minds, 
of  every  denomination,  who  are  willing  to  examine  the  foundations, 
not  only  of  the  Orthodox,  but  of  all  religious  faith,  for  themselves, 
will  find  matter  for  deep  and  satisfactoiy  meditation  in  the  works  just 
mentioned. 

Though  somewhat  acquainted  with  Unitarian  writers,  I  know  not 
the  book  where  the  Unitarian  views  on  this  subject  are  presented  in 
a  simple,  coherent,  dispassionate,  and  intelligible  shape.  The  fact  is, 
that  Unitarian  writers,  when  they  refer  to  this  topic,  are  generally 
not  a  little  confused,  from  their  forced  admission  of  the  inspiration 
and  authority  of  the  scriptures,  and  their  wish  to  appeal  to  human 
reason,  separated  from,  and  in  contradiction  to  those  scriptures. 
A  confusion  arising,  not  from  the  want  of  talent  or  general  learning, 
but  from  the  contradictions  inherent  in  their  system. 

The  proper  use  of  reason  in  matters  of  religion  is,  surely,  a  subject 
of  great  importance,  deserving  serious  thought.  Bretschneider  has 
said,  in  reference  to  the  Supernaturalists,  or  believers  in  the  plenary 
inspiration  of  the  scriptures,  of  Germany,  that  "  they  believe  that 
reason  furnishes  the  proems  of  revelation,  and  that  revelation  cannot 
possibly  contain  any  thing  contrary^  to  reason,  though  it  may  contain 
much  that  rises  above  reason."  This,  he  adds,  was  the  ground  taken 
by  Doderlein,  Morus,  and  Reinhard  ;  and  it  is  the  ground  now  held 
by  Ammon,  Schot,  Niemeyer,  Bretschneider  and  others.  To  this 
the  Orthodox  of  this  country  would  subscribe  without  a  dissenting 
voice. 

At  the  annual  meeting  of  the  Unitarian  Association  in  May  of 
the  present  year,  a  learned  Judge  addressed  the  audience  on  a 
variety  of  topics,  among  others,  dwelling  at  some  length  on  the 
*  Occasional  Sermons,  p.  138. 


subject  of  this  note.  The  original  talents,  the  general  acquire- 
ments, the  unwearied  application  to  his  chosen  science,  and  the 
laborious  duties  of  his  office,  the  judicial  uprightness  and  inten- 
tional impartiaUty  of  Judge  Story,  to  say  nothing  of  his  pri- 
vate character  and  social  virtues,  no  one  is  more  willing,  or 
more  happy  to  admit,  tha'.  the  writer.  He  honors  a  station  that 
would  honor  any  man.  But  that  honorable  gentleman  will  pardon 
me  for  reminding  him,  that  there  are  legal  subjects,  and  others  be- 
sides legal  ones,  that  require  to  be  studied,  in  order  to  be  understood  ; 
and  he  need  not  be  in  doubt  as  to  the  hint,  that  fluency  of  remark 
does  not  always  indicate  intelligence  of  the  subject  professedly  discus- 
sed. Instruction  from  laymen,  upon  subjects  bearing  more  or  less  re- 
motely upon  rehgion,  is  desirable.  It  will  not,  however,  be  thought 
asking  too  much  that  it  be  instruction,  and  not  ignorant  declamation. 
The  assertions  of  even  a  Sir  Matthew  Hale,  will  not  now  pass  for  ar- 
gument. There  was  propriety  in  the  proverb  adopted  by  the  Latins 
from  the  Greeks,  which  it  is  not  necessary  to  apply,  "  Quam  quisque 
norit  artem,  in  hac  se  exerceat."  Will  the  learned  Judge  pardon  me 
for  asking,  rf  it  be  judicious  to  decide,  in  a  popular  meeting,  a  legal 
question  that  may  come  before  him  for  legal  adjudication  ?  Whoever 
listened  to  the  earnest  remarks  of  the  Judge,  must  have  perceived 
that  the  zealot  had  got  the  better  of  the  man,  that  the  partizan  had 
supplanted  the  judge.  The  rights  of  Mr.  Story  to  the  Unitarian  be- 
lief, and  to  advance  the  Unitarian  cause  by  proper  means,  personal, 
pecuniary,  or  other,  are  undoubted.  But  great  legal  questions  (one  of 
which  has  not  yet  been  argued,  or  even  started,  in  our  courts*)  with 
due  deference  to  the  Judge,  I  shall  take  the  liberty  to  remind  him, 
(though  he  long  since  knew,  but  seems  recently  to  have  forgotten  it,) 
are  to  be  presented  in  open  court,  where  both  parties  may  be  heard ;  to 
be  thoroughly  investigated,  by  the  judge  or  judges,  in  moments  of 
cool,  unbiassed  i-eflection  ;  and  to  be  decided,  without  the  impulse  of 
passion,  without  the  influence  of  prejudice,  and  without  the  re- 
membrance of  party.  When  a  judge,  throws  his  decision,  formed 
tvithout  exannination,  into  one  of  those  scales,  which  he  is  bound 
by  his  oath  to  hold  with  even  hand,  while  we  may  respect  his 
social  virtues  and  not  despise  his  talents,  we  shall  not  long  fear  his 
influence.  If  Judge  Story  should  contend  that  he  had  thoroughly 
examined  the  question,  we  should  like  to  know  how  this  will  mend 
the  matter,  or  reUeve  the  difficulty  ?  Will  he,  or  any  one,  say,  "  he 
is  a  judge  of  the  United  States'  Court,  and  this  is  a  question  for  the 

*  The  rights  oi  xo-lwta.ii.y  religious  associations  to  hold  property  by  "trust 
deeds"  under  the  Constitution  of  Massachusetts 


133 

State  Courts,  and  so  he  is  at  liberty  to  give  his  private  opinion"  ? 
Let  us  examine  this  plea.  A.  B.,  a  merchant  of  Boston,  brings, 
or  may  be  supposed  about  bringing  an  action  for  100,000  dollars, 
against  C.  D.,  also  a  merchant  of  Boston.  The  question  is  to  come 
before,  and  to  be  decided  by  Judge  Parker.  Mr.  Justice  Story,  in 
the  course  of  a  public  address  at  Fanueil  Hall,  takes  occasion  to 
argue  and  decide,  the  question.  The  gentleman  in  whose  favor 
Judge  Story  might  decide,  would,  no  doubt,  feel  additional  con- 
fidence in  his  cause.  But  what  would  Judge  Parker,  and  the 
good  people  of  Massachusetts,  think  of  Mr.  Justice  Story?  The 
truth  is.  Judge  Story  has,  in  this  instance,  (on  reflection,  I  am 
convinced,  he  will  think  so  himself,)  descended  from  that  lofty 
eminence  of  impartiality,  where  he  usually  resides,  and  from  that 
perception  of  the  proprieties  of  his  station,  in  which  he  generally 
excels.  He  was  indeed  unfortunate  in  the  time,  place,  and  mode 
of  his  descent.  What  he  said  on  human  reason,  has  been  said  a 
thousand  times,  and  a  thousand  times  shown  to  be  mere  declama- 
tion :  and  his  argument  about  trust  deeds,  could  be  most  easily 
showTi  to  be  of  the  same  character.  It  was,  in  fact,  but  a  repetition 
of  the  unfounded  assertions  of  "  A  Layman,"  which  had  been  a  little 
before  triumphantly  refuted  in  the  review  of  his  famous  pamphlet  on 
trust  deeds.  Judge  Story  would  do  well  to  remember  that  the  fol- 
lowers of  Jonathan  Edwards  can  reason  ;  and  that  the  descendants 
of  the  Puritans  know  to  whom  they  owe  allegiance,  and  of  whom 
they  may  claim  their  rights. 

Unitarians  object  to  the  term  rationalism,  as  indicative  of  their 
system,  though  "it  claims  a  more  intimate  alliance  with  reason" 
than  Orthodoxy.  But  what  is  rationalism  ?  Let  Wegscheider  define 
his  own  system.  "  It  is  an  unquestionable  fact,  that  in  the  canonical 
books  of  the  New  Testament,  are  contained  the  authoritative  docu- 
ments of  the  Christian  religion,  and  of  the  divine  truth,  which  it  de- 
clares ;  and  these  documents  are  of  the  antiquity,  which  they  purport, 
and  are  perfectly  worthy  of  credit.  This  being  the  case,  in  con- 
ducting a  system  of  instruction  for  mankind  at  large,  it  is  our  duty  to 
employ  the  utmost  attention  and  pains,  that,  laying  aside  those  far- 
fetched conjectures  and  questions,  equally  difficult  and  unprofitable, 
which  have  been  brought  up  in  later  times,  concerning  revelation  and 
the  inspiration  of  the  sacred  books,  we  should  evince  that  the  Chris- 
tian religion,  as  well  as  the  Holy  Scripture,  originated  in  God  as  its 
author,  and  should  urge  upon  men  the  truly  divine  contents  of  the 
scriptures,  which  become  constantly  better  understood,  as  what  has 
proceeded  from  God,  and  is  the  true  word  of  God ;  and  therefore 


134 

should  applylrto  the  practical  use  of  life."  What  is  there  in  this  so 
frightful,  that  Unitarians  shrink  from  it?  Is  it  not  as  near  a  defini- 
tion of  American  Unitarianism  as  can  be  given  ?  Those  who  know 
what  word^  mean,  or  do  not  mean,  know,  that  this  so  plausible  and 
smooth-speaking  definition  excludes  all  revelation. 

I  will  only  add  that,  if  Unitarians  continue  to  pervert  the  word  ra- 
tional, as  for  some  time  past  they  have  done,  we  shall  be  obliged  to 
renounce  it,  and  use  the  word  '  reasonable'  for  what  '  rational'  once 
meant.     Knave  formerly  signified  boy. 


NOTE  I.    Pase  83. 


rxiTARIANS    AND    UNIVERSALISTS. 

What  I  have  to  say  upon  these  topics,  not  very  popular  in  some 
high  places,  I  shall  arrange  under  these  heads,  1.  Unitarianism, 
properly  defined,  inchides  both  classes.  2.  American  Universalism 
is  really  the  original  American  Unitarianism.  3.  Unitarians,  now  so 
called,  do  not  understand,  or  wilfully  misrepresent,  Universalism.  4. 
Unitarianism,  in  its  largest,  broadest  sense,  as  beUeved  by  the  great- 
est number  of  its  adherents,  is  Universalism. 

Can  these  propositions  be  made  out  ?  If  they  cannot  be,  I  ac- 
knowledge myself  obnoxious  to  the  charge  of  bearing  false  witness 
against  my  neighbor.  If  they  can  be  made  out,  the  consciences  of 
those  concerned  can  decide  on  their  past  conduct  and  future  duty. 
The  community  will  also  be  prepared  to  take  some  new  views  of 
"  the  arguments  of  liberal  Christians,  that  are  before  the  public,  and 
of  their  characters,  which  are  the  property  of  society."  The  first 
question,  which  arises  in  this  investigation,  and  which  must  be 
settled  before  we  proceed,  is,  what  is  Unitarianism  ?  What  is  it  in 
its  essence,  as  defined  and  believed  by  its  friends  ?  This  question 
shall  be  answered  by  English  and  American  Unitarians.  The  Month- 
ly Repository,  the  Christian  Disciple,  the  Christian  Examiner,  and 
the  Christian  Register,  shall  decide  this  and  other  connected  ques- 
tions. 

"  The  essence  of  Unitarianism  is  the  doctrine  of  the  One  God,  the 
Father.  This  is  to  be  carefully  distinguished  from  the  heterogeneous 
mass  (?)  of  opinions,  which  have  in  different  individuals  been  com- 
bined with  it."     Month.  Rep.  Aug,  1827,  p.  554. 

Rev.  W.  H.  Drummond,  D.  D.  a  Unitarian  preacher  of  Dubhn,  in 
a  work   dedicated   (the   English  reviewers   say,   "  with  great  pro- 


135         rfUFTtrr--T 
\  ■"^■*? 

priety,")  to  Rammoliun  Roy  and  Dr.  Chaniffla^,  **  lias  divided  all 
Christians  into  two  denominations,  Unitarians  and.  Tnnitarians." 
Dr.  Drummond  adds,  (and  we  shall  soon  see  that  his  American 
friends  chime  in  to  the  same  tune,)  "  in  proportion  as  the  chords  of  a 
musical  instrument  are  multiplied,  the  diflTiculty  of  preserving  concord 
is  increased."  "  The  term  '  Unitarian,'  applied  to  our  places  of 
worship,  should  be  understood  as  denoting  nothing  more  than  that 
all  prayers  are  strictly  addressed  to  the  One  God  and  Father  of  all," 
says  a  writer  in  the  Monthly  Repository.  "  The  essence  of  [Eng- 
lish] Unitarianism  is  the  doctrine  of  One  God,  the  Father,"  (with- 
out any  reference  to  Jesus  Christ,  the  Son  ol  God.)  American 
Unitarians  have  not,  as  yet,  adopted  quite  so  "exclusive"  a  creed. 
"  The  basis  of  the  Unitarian  creed  is,  the  One  God  and  Jesus 
Christ,  whom  he  has  sent."  Christian  Disciple,  1822,  p.  313, 
This  has  rather  an  unusual  share  of  Unitarian  definiteness.  With 
suitable  explanations,  it  might  apply  to  all  Christians,  of  all  coun- 
tries, in  all  ages.  Dr.  Priestley  would  infer  from  this,  that 
the  church  universal  has  been,  and  will  be  evermore.  Unitarian, 
However,  the  following  extract  from  the  Christian  Regi  ter,  of  Dee. 
22,  1827,  will  help  to  define  what  might  be  thought  5omet/?/iaf  indefi- 
nite in  the  preceding  quotation.  "  Unitarians  are  those  who  believe, 
that  there  is  one  God,  even  the  Father:  and  that  Jesus  is  not  this  one 
God,  but  a  distinct  being,  denved  and  dependent,  and  sent  by  God  to 
accomplish  his  benevolent  will  on  earth. ...Unitarianism  excludes  the 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  and  the  popular  notions  about  atonement. 
On  other  subjects  Unitarians  divide."  We  shall  have  occasion  for 
this  witness  again. 

Unitarianism,  then,  comprehending  English  and  Ameriean  be- 
lievers in  the  doctrine,  is  simple  monotheism,  or  pure  theism. 
American  Unitarians  believe  in  this  one  God,  deny  that  Christ, 
in  any  view  of  his  character,  w^as  properly  participant  of  the  di- 
vine nature,  but  believe  that  he  was  (as  every  other  prophet  was) 
wholly  derived  and  dependent,  yet  sent  by  God  to  accomplish  his  be- 
nevolent will  on  earth  ;  and  they  also  reject  the  popular  notions  of 
atonement.  How  long  it  will  be  before  they  will  find  that  they 
have  too  manj'^  chords  to  their  "  musical  instrument,"  it  is  not  neces- 
sary to  decide.  It  requires,  however,  a  skilful  hand  to  touch  the  re- 
maining two,  and  not  produce  a  jar.  Unitarianism,  defined  by  its 
friends,  consists  either  in  the  belief  of  "  One  God  the  Father  "  or  of 
*'  One  God,  and  of  Jesus  Christ  as  sent  to  accomplish  the  benevolent 
will  of  God,  excluding  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  and  the  popular 
notions  about  atonement;  and  on  other  subjects,  Unitarains  divide." 


136 

I  shall  now  adduce  the  evidence  of  the  truth  of  the  two  first  propo- 
sitions, that  Unitarianism,  properly  defined,  embraces  both  classes, 
Universalists  and  Unitarians,  and  that  American  Universalism  is 
really  the  original  American  Unitarianism.  The  intelligence,  com- 
petence, and  credibility  of  the  witness  are  beyond  exception.  In  the 
Monthly  Repository  for  March,  1827,  p.  176,  is  a  communication 
entitled,  *'  Universalists  in  the  United  States  of  America,"  signed 
by  Robert  Aspland,  a  well  known  Unitarian  minister  of  Hack- 
ney, near  London.  He  says,  that  he  has  received  a  letter  from 
the  Rev.  Thomas  Whittemore  of  Cambridgeport,  Mass.,  and  adds, 
"  the  following  account  of  the  present  state  of  the  Universal- 
ists of  the  United  States,  in  the  words  of  my  correspondent, 
is  a  pleasing  proof  of  the  natural  tendency  of  serious  minds  to- 
wards scriptural  truth,  when  they  are  not  checked  by  the  influence 
of  institutions  bearing  a  mingled  civil  and  religious  character."  Then 
follows  this  quotation  from  Mr.  Ws  letter.  "  The  denomination  to 
which  I  belong,  is  composed  of  upwards  of  three  hundred  societies, 
and  about  two  hundred  preachers.  Their  numbers  are  continually 
receiving  accessions.  We  have  increased  most  in  New  England, 
New  York,  Ohio,  and  Pennsylvania,  though  there  ar«  Universalists 
scattered  all  over  the  United  States.  It  will,  perhaps,  be  pleasing  to 
you  to  learn,  that  this  sect  is,  with  indeed  a  very  few  exceptions, 
entirely  Unitarian.  I  know  of  but  three  ministers  in  the  whole 
order,  who  are  Trinitarians,  and  I  believe  the  greater  proportion 
are  Humanitarian.  With  the  very  few  exceptions  just  mentioned, 
we  concur  in  rejecting,  as  absurd  and  unscriptural,  the  old  idea  of 
atonement,  believing  that  this  scheme  of  man's  redemption  from  sin, 
originates  in  the  Father  of  all  who  sent  his  Son  to  commend  his  love 
to  mankind."...."  My  friend,  as  the  tenor  of  his  communication 
authorizes  me  to  call  him,  apprizes  me,"  continues  Mr.  Aspland, 
"  that  the  ministers  of  his  denomination  in  Boston  and  its  vi- 
cinity have  sent  me  a  package  of  their  publications,  presuming 
that  it  will  be  agreeable  to  the  Unitarians  in  England  to  be- 
come acquainted  with  the  numbers,  doctrines,  and  arguments  of 
the  Universalists  in  the  United  States.  In  the  package,  I  am  in- 
formed, is  a  '  Treatise  on  Atonement '  by  Mr.  Ballou,  whose 
labours,  Mr.  "VMiittemore  says,  have  greatly  promoted  the  change 
which  has  taken  place  among  the  American  Universalists,  with  re- 
gard to  the  atonement  and  the  character  of  Christ.  Of  this  '  Trea- 
tise' and  its  author  he  further  says,  that  it  is  the  first  American 
work  in  which  the  doctrine  of  Unitarianism  was  ever  advanced  and 
defended.    Here  you  find  it  distinctly  stated  and  argued.    This 


137 

work  was  first  published  about  the  year  1803,  two  years  before  Slicr» 
man's  Treatise,  which  has  generally,  but  erroneously  been  considered 
the  first  public  attack  on  Trinitarianism,  which  America  afforded  ; 
Dr.  Priestley,  being  a  European,  I  except.  Mr.  Ballou's  work  is  the 
fruit  of  his  own  mind,  aided  by  the  scriptures.  He  never  read  an 
authoi-,  either  on  Atonement  or  the  Unity  of  God,  till  after  he  wrote. 
I  believe  I  have  now  extracted  the  whole  of  the  intelligence  relating 
to  the  Universalists  furnished  by  my  highly  valued  correspondent, 
which  would  be  interesting  to  your  readers." 

It  seems,  then,  that  this  sect  with  very  few  exceptions,  three 
out  of  two  hundred,  are  Unitarian,  rejecting  the  old  idea  of  atone- 
ment ;  and  still  more,  that  the  first  definite  public  statement  and 
defence  of  Unitarianism  and  attack  upon  Trinitarianism  were  made 
by  the  leader  of  this  sect  about  the  year  1803.  This  was  "a 
considerable  time "  before  the  present  Unitarians  acknowledged 
themselves  to  be  of  that  sect ;  yes,  while  they  yet  resolutely 
denied  it-,  while  Dr.  Channing  himself  was  yet  groping  in  a  pene- 
Calvinism.  Hereafter  Mr.  Ballou  must  be  considered  another 
"  Venerable  Lindsey,"  the  father  of  American  Unitarianism.* 
If  the  evidence  before  us  do  not  warrant  the  conclusion  that  the 
present  Unitacians  are  Universalists,  this  is  certain  the  Univer- 
salists are  Unitarians.  The  term  Unitarianism,  then,  in  its  broad 
and  proper  sense,  includes  or  belongs  to  both  the  Universalists  and 
the  Unitarians  of  the  present  day.  Mr.  Ballou's  church  is  as' truly 
Unitarian,  the  doctrine  taught  there  is  as  genuine  Unitarianism,  as 
the  church,  or  the  doctrine  taught  in  the  church  of  Mr.  Pierpont. 
Mr.  Whittemore  is  as  strenuous  an  advocate  for  Unitarianism  as  Dr. 
Ware.  Mr.  Turner  of  Charlton,  is  as  liberal  in  his  theology  as 
Ml".  Walker  of  Charlestown.  The  recent  conjunction  of  these  latter 
gentlemen  shows  that  all  imaginary  differences  are  removed.  They 
have  risen  above  the  prejudices  of  the  day,  and  a  prominent  Unita- 
rian minister  has  preached  the  installation  sermon  of  a  Universalist 
pastor  over  a  Unitarian  congregation.  It  does  not  appear  that  Mr. 
Turner,  in  passing  from  the  Universalist  to  the  Unitarian  ranks,  has 
altered  or  in  any  way  modified  his  doctrinal  views.  He  remains  still, 
as  he  was  before,  a  Universalist.  Knowing  him  to  be  such,  a  council 
of  Unitarian  clergymen  install  him,  and  admit  him  to  their  ranks. 

Let  it  be  remembered,  that  Unitarians,  as  such,  believe  in  one 
God,  and  Jesus  Christ,  whom  he  has  sent,  and  reject  the  popular 

*  The  slight  exception  at  the  Stone  Chapel,  is  hardly  worth  noticing.  Mr. 
Ballou  first,  openly,  frankly,  fully  avowed  Unitarianism.  He  is  the  first  Americaa 
"  Author  "  of  the  system. 

13 


138 

notions  or  old  ideas  about  atonement;  and  on  other  subjects,  divide. 
Here  then  the  present  Unitarians  and  Universalists  are  one  ;  and 
one  name  should,  unquestionably,  be  appropriated  to  one  thing. 
That  American  Universalism  is  the  original  American  Unita- 
rianism,  has  also  been  made  apparent.  In  1803,  Mr.  Ballou,  in 
his  Treatise  on  Atonement,  first  advanced  and  defended  from  the 
American  press  the  doctrine  of  Unitarianism.  Here  it  was  "  dis- 
tinctly stated  and  argued."  This  early  distinct  statement  is  notice- 
able. Whether  all  subsequent  writers  have  followed  Mr.  Ballou  in 
this  particular,  we  cannot  now  stop  to  inquire.  The  first  public  an- 
nunciation of  Unitarianism  in  the  United  States  was  in  connexion 
with  Universalism.  What  Unitarianism  is,  in  its  own  proper  essence, 
detached  from  every  thing  extraneous,  we  have  now  seen ;  when  it 
first  made  its  public  appearance  in  this  country,  under  whose  patron- 
age and  in  what  connexion,  we  have  also  seen. 

I  come  now  to  the  third  proposition,  which  is,  that  Unitarians 
(using  the  word  in  its  limited  sense)  either  do  not  understand,  or 
wilfully  misrepresent  the  opinions  held  by  the  Universalist- Unita- 
rians. This  charge  is  not  advanced  without  thought,  nor  without 
caution,  nor,  what  is  more,  without  evidence.  In  the  Christian  Ex- 
aminer for  1826,  is  a  Review  of  a  Sermon  by  Prof.  Stuart,  in  which 
the  reviewer  says,  "  the  Universalist  holds,  in  common  with  the 
preacher,  the  doctrine  of  atonement  by  the  blood  of  Christ.  He 
belief es  in  a  full  atonement  for  all  men,  that  Christ  was  a  propitiation 
for  the  sins  of  the  whole  world."  p.  236.  This  writer  is  no  novice, 
and  would  not,  at  the  moment  of  writing  this  review,  have  allowed 
his  ignorance  of  the  doctrine  held  by  American  Universalists.  In  the 
Christian  Register,  March  8,  1828,  is  an  abstract  of  a  sermon  preach- 
ed by  Rev.  Mr.  Pierpont,  at  the  ordination  of  Mr.  Presbury.  The 
preacher,  attempting  to  repel  the  charge  that  Unitarians  are  Univer- 
salists, brings  forward  this  as  one  of  his  strong  reasons,  "  besides, 
do  not  Unitarians  voluntarily  retire  from  the  great,  the  best  ground 
on  which  the  Universalist's  doctrine  can  be  built,  i.  e.  an  infinite 
atonement  7  If  full  satisfaction  has  been  made,  how  can  any  more 
be  demanded  ?  If  the  sins  of  all  men  have  been  laid  upon  one,  and 
he  has  borne  the  punishment  due  to  all,  why  should  any  more  be 
punished  ?  An  infinite  atonement  cannot  be  limited  ;  a  debt  cancel- 
led cannot  be  again  demanded."*  And  more  to  the  same  purpose. 
The  reviewer  before  quoted,  writes  in  the  same  style.     But,  says  Mr. 

*  In  this  passage,  Mr.  P.  has  the  misfortune  not  to  slate  correctly  the  opinions, 
either  of  the  Orthodox,  or  the  Universalists,  or  even  of  the  Unitarians.  -'Distinct 
statements"  of  opinions,  have  gone  out  of  fashion  since  1803. 


139 

Whittcmore,  who  certainly  has  the  best  opportunity  of  knowing,  "  Uni- 
versalists,  with  veiy  few  exceptions,  concur  in  rejecting,  as  absurd 
and  unscrijiiural,  these  old  ideas  of  atonement.''    Here  then,  are  two 
leading  Unitarian  writers,  (to  one  of  which  the  Christian  Examiner 
gives  the  sanction  of  the  Unitarian  party,)  charging  upon  a  numerous 
and  respectable  body  of  clergymen  opinions  which  they  do  not  hold  ; 
opinions  which  they  reject  and  decidedly  condemn.     If  these  gentle- 
men have  done  this  in  ignorance,  let  them,  if  they  do  not  think  it 
due  to  the  interests  of  truth  publicly  to  acknowledge  an  error  publicly 
proclaimed,  at  least  refrain  in  all  coming  time  from  a  repetition  of  the 
same  mistatements.    If  they  have  done  this,  knowing  at  the  time  what 
they  were  doing,  "  to  serve  a  turn"* — but  I  wnll  not  trust  myself  to 
comment  on  a  supposition  I  am  reluctant  to  believe.     It  is  hoped  these 
gentlemen   will    not    attempt    to    shield    themselves    behind   w^hat 
Chaunccy,  and   others   long   since  under  ground,    may  have    said. 
We  do  not  hold  Dr.  Channing  bound  to  believe  "  Bible  News,"  nor 
even  his  own  sermons  published   fifteen  years  ago.     Those  who  set 
up  for  teachers,  however,  when  they  attempt  to  give  the  opinions  of 
"  two  hundred  clergymen,"  should  know  what  they  say,  and  whereof 
they  affirm.     It  is  said  of  some  of  old  time,  that  they  were  "  ever 
learning,  and  never  able  to  come  to  the  knowledge  of  the  truth." 
Is   this  applicable   to  past  time   only  7     Is    this    changeling  race 
extinct  ? 

My  fourth  remark  is,  that  Unitarianism,  in  its  largest,  broadest 
sense,  as  believed  by  the  greatest  number  of  its  adherents,  is  Uni- 
versalism.  By  this  I  mean  to  say,  that  the  great  majority  of  those, 
who  profess  in  England  and  America,  to  be  believers  in  the  simple 
Unity  of  God,  in  contradistinction  from  those  who  believe  in  the 
Trinity  in  Unity,  are  also  believers  in  the  final  salvation  of  all  men. 
About  the  American  Universalist-Unitarians,  there  is  no  question ; 
though  it  should  be  remembered,  that  some  of  thesef  believe  in  future 
punishment,  which,  however,  will  be  limited  and  remedial,  ending  in 
the  final  restoration  of  all  to  purity  and  blessedness.  What  do  Eng- 
lish Unitarians  believe  on  this  subject  ?  A  writer  already  quoted 
from  the  Christian  Register,  says,  "  in  England,  where  the  doctrine 
of  necessity  prevails  among  Unitarians,  the  connected  doctrine  of 
the  ultimate  happiness  of  all  human  beings  goes  along  with  it."     So 

*  A  writer  in  the  Christian  Examiner  says  ;  the  Orthodox  charge  the  Unitarians 
with  being  Universalists  to  serve  a  turn.  One  tiling  is  evident  from  Mr.  Pierpont, 
this  writer,  and  Dr.  Ware,  Unitarians  are  ashamed  or  afraid  to  avow  themselves 
Universalists.  Is  it  the  name,  they  are  afraid  of?  "  What  care  we  for  names  r'' 
asked  Mr.  May,  at  the  Unitarian  Association. 

t  In  what  does  this  class  of  Universalists  differ  from  the  great  body  of  Unita- 
rians f 


140 

far  then  is  plain,  the  English  Unitarians,  and  the  whole  Univer- 
salist  class  of  American  Unitarians,  believe  in  the  ultimate  happi- 
ness of  all  human  beings  ;  or  are  Univer salists. 

The  question  now  remains,  What  do  those,  known  here  by  the 
name  of  Unitarians,  believe  on  this  subject  ?  I  answer,  that  some 
leading  Unitarians,  who  surely  ought  to  know,  state  the  final  resti- 
tution of  the  impenitent  to  be  a  part  of  their  system  ;  that  those,  who 
deny  it  to  be  a  necessary  part  of  their  system,  admit  that  many  Uni- 
tarians do  hold  this  doctrine ;  that  few,  if  any,  deny  a  final  restitu- 
tion ;  and  that  most  reject  the  proper  eternity  of  hell  punishments. 

Can  these  propositions  be  made  out  ?  If  they  can  be,  will  it  be 
any  longer  asserted,  that  when  the  Orthodox  charge  the  Unitarians 
with  being  Universalists,  it  is  to  serve  a  turn  ? 

The  writer  already  twice  quoted  from  the  Ch.  Register,  Dec.  22, 1827, 
begins  his  communication  thus  :  "  In  looking  at  the  first  number  of 
'  The  Unitarian,'  a  new  periodical  published  in  New  York,  which  has 
many  claims  onimtronage,  I  find  a  sketch  of  Unitarianism,  in  which 
it  is  more  than  implied,  that  the  doctrine  of  the  final  restitution  of 
the  impenitent,  through  the  disciplinary  and  reforming  power  of  future 
punishment,  is  a  part  of  this  system.  Now  that  many  Unitarians 
hold  this  doctrine  is  true,  &c."....He  then  admits  that  "  a  free  being 
may  make  himself  sinful  and  miserable  during  his  whole  being.  / 
mean  7iot,  however,  to  object  to  the  doctrine  of  final  restitution. 
I  only  say  it  is  not  Unitarianism,"  which  he  then  defines  as  before 
quoted.  The  New  York  Unitarians,  not  slightly  indebted  to  the 
Cambridge  School  for  their  liberality  of  thinking,  "  more  than  imply  " 
that  the  doctrine  of  a  final  restitution  is  a  part  of  their  system.  A 
Boston  writer,  somewhat  more  cautious  in  the  use  of  words,  "  does 
not  mean  to  object  to  the  doctrine  of  final  restitution"  in  itself,  but 
only  to  say  that  it  is  not  Unitarianism  ;  i.  e.  as  defined  in  this  note.  Mr. 
Pierpont,  according  to  the  Christian  Register,  tallies  in  his  notions  with 
this  writer.  Dr.  Bancroft  says,  "  For  myself,  I  freely  declare,  that, 
from  a  diligent  examination  of  the  New  Testament,,!  am  satisfied  it 
does  not  contain  the  doctrine  of  punishment,  endless  in  duration." 
Sermons,  p.  391.  "Many  who  disbelieve  the  doctrine  of  eternal 
punishment,  are  afraid  to  avow  their  opinion,  lest  it  should  weaken 
the  restraints  of  religion.     This  is  not  my  fear."*  p.  392. 

We  must  omit  a  large  mass  of  evidence,  collected  on  this  point,  and 

close  these  extracts  by  a  quotation  which,  (let  this  be  noticed,)  speaks 

*  What!  Those  who  reject  "the  heart  withering  doctrine  of  eternal  torments" 
afraid  to  announce  the  glad  tidings.  Afraid  to  preach  the  truth,  they  believe 
Christ  came  to  publish  !  Afraid  to  preach  what  God  has  commissioned  and  com- 
manded them  to  preach  I !  Are  these  the  followers  of  Christ  >.  the  successors  of 
Luther  ? 


141 

in  tlie  name  of  the  Unitarian  sect.  "  If  by  everlasting  punishment 
is  meant  the  proper  eternity  of  hell  torments,  it  is  a  doctrine  which 
most  Unitarians  of  the  present  day  concur  in  rejecting  ;  some  un- 
derstanding by  that  everlasting  destruction  to  which  the  wicked  are 
to  be  consigned,  an  absolute  annihilation  ;  others  conceiving  of  their 
sufferings  as  consequential,  and  indefinite  as  to  their  duration  ;  and 
others  that  all  punishment  will  be  necessarily  remedial,  and  will  end 
at  last  in  a  universal  restoration  to  goodness  and  happiness."  Chris- 
tian Disciple,  vol.  iii.  New  Series,  p.  451.* 

The  case  stands  thus.  All  the  English  Unitarians,  with  whom  the 
American  Unitarians  are  in  an  alliance  as  intimate  as  distance  and 
political  circumstances  admit,  and  with  whom  they  profess  to  be  de- 
sirous of  still  more  active  co-operation  in  the  great  work  of  human 
illumination  and  mental  emancipation,  are  Universalists.  The  largest 
and  the  original  class  of  American  Unitarians  are  Universalists, 
openly  taking  the  name,  and  distinctly  and  honorably  stating  their 
opinions.  Some  of  the  most  intelligent  among  the  Unitarian 
leaders,  in  "  a  periodical  having  many  claims  on  patronage,"  more 
than  imply,  the  doctrine  of  the  ultimate  restitution  of  all  to  holiness 
and  happiness  to  be  apart  of  their  system.  Many,  who  deny  that- 
this  is  a  necessary  part  of  Unitarianism,  yet  hold  to  the  doctrine. 
Few,  if  any,  deny  a  final  restitution  ;  and  most  reject  the  doctrine 
of  everlasting  punishment.  Surely,  after  this  accumulation  of  testi- 
mony from  their  own  writings,  Unitarians  will  no  longer  attempt 
to  disguise  a  fact,  which  they  dare  not  deny,  and  which,  if  they 
would  be  frank,  they  would  openly  confess.  Dr.  Bancroft  speaks 
his  own  opinions,  with  a  distinctness  that  does  him  honor.  He 
says,  "  future  punishment  will  be  of  limited  duration,  and  will 
terminate  in  the  annihilation  of  the  wicked."  Sermons,  p.  407. 
The  only  qualification,  then,  to  the  proposition,  that  Unitarians 
are  Universalists,  is,  that  some,  apparently  a  very  small  number  of 
Unitarians,  are  Destructionists  ;  but  the  opinions  of  a  small  minority 
cannot  affect  the  question,  what  the  great  majority  believe. 

While  this  subject  is  under  investigation,  and  to  prevent,  if  pos- 
sible, a  further  recurrence  to  it,  it  may  be  well  to  sift  it  thoroughly, 
and,  for  this  purpose,  to  view  it  in  various  lights.  There  is  a  gentle- 
man at  Cambridge,  well  skilled  in  the  doctrine  of  chances,  which  he 
has  lately  presented  in  formidable  array  against  the  Pauline  origin 
of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews.  His  formula  is  something  like 
9  99,999,99L-,999  to  1,  against  Paul  as  the  author  of  that  Epistle.     If 

*  For  further  evidence,  if  needed,  see  the  Spirit  of  the  Pilgrims, March,  1828, 
p.  155. 

12* 


142 

his  time  and  other  avocations  admit,  he  may,  perhaps,  be  able  to 
throw  some  light  on  this  problem.  Unitarians  in  England  and 
America  state  but  one  article  of  a  creed,  which  they  all  believe. 
On  most  other  subjects  they  "  differ  widely,"  combining  this  one 
tenet  "  with  a  heterogeneous  mass  of  opinions."  But  the  whole 
body  of  English  Unitarians,  together  with  the  Universalist-Unitarians 
of  this  country,  agree  in  another  article,  to  wit,  the  ultimate  happiness 
of  all  men.  Most  American  Unitarians  reject  the  everlasting  pun- 
ishment of  any.  Few  deny  the  final  restitution  of  all.  Some  of  the 
most  intelligent  and  influential  of  the  Unitarians,  who  cannot  be  ig- 
norant of  their  own  opinions,  and  ought  to  know  what  their  system 
teaches,  "  more  than  imply  the  final  restitution  of  all  to  be  a  part 
of  this  system  ;"  and  many  not  only  believe,  but  openly  acknowledge 
it.  What,  then,  according  to  the  doctrine  of  chances,  is  the  proba- 
bility that  a  believer  in  Unitarianism  is  a  Universalist  ? 

Again.  American  Unitarians,  as  a  sect,  are  the  same  as  the  English 
Unitarians.  There  is  a  strong  feeling  of  oneness,  of  identity,  as  a 
sect,  in  all  they  say  of  each  other.  The  American  Unitarian  feels 
himself  ai  ho7ne  in  the  Enghsh  Unitarian's  pulpit.  We  presume  no 
one  ever  thought  of  questioning  this  position,  the  English  and  Ameri- 
can Unitarians  are  as  much  one  sect,  as  the  English  and  American 
Calvinists,  INIethodists,  &c.  But  is  it  not  fair  to  infer,  that  the  same 
sects  hold  the  same  opinions,  till  they  inform  us  otherwise  ? 

Will  it  it  be  thought  irrelevent  or  impertinent,  if  the  writer  take 
the  Uberty  to  ask,  what  opinions  are  taught  by  the  Hollis  Professor  on 
the  subject  of  this  note  ?  What  is  the  doctrine,  as  to  the  duration 
i)f future  punishment,  taught  in  the  theological  school  at  Cambridge  7 
I  forbear  to  dwell  directly  upon  the  attitude  in  which  the  Hollis  Pro- 
fessor now  appears  before  the  public.  The  subject  might  be  thought 
personal,  because  it  is  official,  and  would  be  thought  invidious,  be- 
cause the  attitude  is,  to  say  the  least,  neither  frank  nor  honorable. 
This  gentleman  may  not  wish  openly  to  express  his  sentiments,  but 
he  cannot  conceal  them.  What  "  turn  "  is  "  to  be  served  "  by  the 
course  now  pursued  at  Cambridge,  though  not  matter  of  conjecture, 
it  is  unnecessary  to  specify.  At  all  other  theological  schools,  the  pro- 
iessors  think  it  rational  to  state  fairly  to  the  public  what  they  believe 
the  Bible  teaches  on  this  momentous  question.  At  the  Institution, 
which  professes  to  be  rational  beyond  all  others,  it  is  thought  irra- 
tional to  state  either  the  opinions  of  the  sect,  or  of  the  individual 
professors,  who  have  made  up  their  own  opinions,  and  are  appointed 
to  teach  others  the  doctrines  of  the  sect.  In  the  college,  "  no  doc- 
trines in  particular"  are  taught.    This   would  seem  a  meet  intro- 


143 

duction  to  the  divinity  class,  where  some  doctrines  in  particular  are 
no  doubt  privately  taught,  though  not  publicly  acknowledged— nay 
more,  by  implication  at  least,  even  publicly  denied. 

How  shall  we  ascertain  the  opinions  of  the  Hollis  Professor  ? 
I  shall  not  open  his  letters  to  Trinitarians  and  Calvinists.  He  does 
not  allow  them  to  be  sutficiently  definite  for  the  public  to  infer  Uni- 
versalism  from  their  statements  or  arguments.  We  will  now  grant 
that  his  letters  on  this  subject  are  ambiguous.  Is  there  any  re- 
maining source  of  evidence  by  which  we  may  elicit  his  real  opin- 
ions ?  I  cannot  say  how  other  minds  may  estimate  testimony, 
but  were  the  question  much  more  doubtful  than  it  is,  the  fol- 
lowing witness  would  satisfy  me.  There  is  a  paper  published 
at  New  York,  called  the  Olive  Branch  and  Christian  Inquirer, 
edited  by  Rev.  Abner  Kneeland,  a  well  known  Universalist  min- 
ister. In  noticing  the  ordination  of  the  Rev.  Mr.  Lunt,  as  pastor 
of  the  Second  Congregational  Unitarian  Church,  the  Editor  says,  in 
the  number  for  July  5,  1828,  "  The  Rev.  Mr.  Ware,  [of  New  York,] 
in  giving  the  right  hand  of  fellowship,  stated,  that  after  laboring  so 
many  years,  (six  if  my  memoiy  serves  me,)  this  was  the  only  church 
with  whom  he  could  have  fellowship  as  a  sister  church,  and  Mr. 
Lunt,  the  only  minister  with  whom  he  could  reciprocate  an  exchange 
of  gifts  in  this  city.  Now  we  would  ask,  why  is  it  so  ?  Are  they 
Unitarians  ?  So  are  we.  Do  they  believe  that '  in  the  resurrection  of 
Jesus  of  Nazareth,  we  have  an  assurance  of  our  own  resuri-ection  and 
immortality'  ?  So  do  we.  Do  they  believe  that  '  the  production  of 
happiness  is  the  great  aim  in  all  the  dispensations  and  plans  of  divine 
providence'  ?  So  do  we.  Do  they  believe  that  all  suffering  is  either 
indispensable,  or  *  else  is  made  subservient  to  the  same  good  and  sub- 
lime end  ;  that  it  will  therefore  be  disciplinary,  remedial,  purifying, 
saving  in  its  character,  and  will  consequently  some  time  cease'  ? 
So  do  we.*  [See  the  '  Unitarian,  No.  1,'  written  by  the  Rev.  Mr. 
Ware,  of  New  York.]  Now,  we  beg  to  know  and  wish  Mr.  Ware  or 
some  other  Unitarian  would  inform  us,  what  it  is  which  the  Unita- 
rian believes,  that  we  do  not  believe,  which  prevents  their  fellow- 
ship as  well  as  with  those  who  bear  the  name  of  Unitarian  ;  or  is  it 
wholly  because  we  do  not  appear  in  a  mitre  and  gown  7    We  have 

*  "  In  addition  to  our  own  society,  and  the  other  tJnitarian-Universalists  in  this 
city,  [New-York,]  there  is  the  Rev.  Mr.  Clough,  who  has  his  peculiar  views,  it  is 
true,  but  lie  is  a  decided  Unitarian,  and  has  done  as  much,  perliaps,  towards  dis- 
seminating the  Unity  of  God,  as  the  Rev.  Mr.  Ware  himself.  There  is  also  the 
numerous  class  of  liberal  Friends,  who  are  decidf.-ly  Unitarians,  and  who  can  bring 
as  much  scripture  for  their  peculiar  views,  as  Unitarians  can  bring  for  what  they 
call  "  infant  baptism."  Why  then  should  the  doctrine  of  Unitarianism,  and  the 
fellowship  of  Unitarians,  be  confined  to  the  Unitarians  of  tho  Cambridge  stamp 
alone.'" — Olive  Branch  and  Christian  Inquirer. 


144 

not  the  least  wish  to  crowd  ourselves  into  company  where  we  are  not 
wanted ;  but  we  should  like  to  know  the  true  reason  why  we  are  ex- 
cluded. We  wish  to  have  it  distinctly  understood  that  the  doctrine 
of  Unitarians,  so  far  as  the  unity  of  God,  or  the  person  and  mission  of 
Jesus  Christ  is  concerned,  we  firmly  believe  and  heartily  fellowship  ; 
but  with  bigotry  and  illiberality  we  have  no  fellowship,  though  they 
should  bear  the  name  and  wear  the  garb  of  a  Universalist." 

This  extract  is  of  much,  and  various  value.  Mr.  Kneeland  informs 
us,  that  it  is  the  Rev.  Mr.  Ware  who  asserts  in  the  Unitarian,  "  that 
all  punishment  or  suffering  will  be  disciplinary,  remedial,  purifying, 
saving  in  its  character,  and  will  consequently  some  time  cease." 
This  does  somewhat  "  more  than  imply  "  the  final  restitution  of  all 
men.  Is  the  Rev.  Mr,  Ware  of  New  York  a  fair  representative  of 
Cambridge  theological  students .'  May  we  not  presume  that  his 
opinions  are  the  opinions  of  the  Hollis  Professor?  Has  he  de- 
parted from  the  opinions  taught  him  in  childhood,  from  the  in- 
structions of  his  collegiate  and  the  doctrines  of  his  theological 
education  ?  Till  otherwise  informed,  we  shall  feel  ourselves  war- 
ranted to  take  the  opinions  of  the  Rev,  Mr,  Ware  of  New 
York,  published  in  the  organ  of  Unitarianism  in  that  city,  as  the 
opinions  held  at  the  theological  institution,  in  which  he  received 
his  education ;  we  shall  take  his  opinions  to  coincide  with  those  of  the 
Hollis  Professor,  till  he  or  the  Professor  explicitly,  intelligibly,  and 
unambiguously  denies  it.  We  then  assert,  on  this  evidence,  that 
Unwersalism  is  the  doctrine  taught  by  the  Hollis  Professor  in  the 
theological  school  at  Cambridge.     Will  he  deny  this  ? 

Will  Unitarians  notice  the  questions  propounded  by  Rev.  Mr,  Knee- 
land  ?  Why  does  Dr.  Channing  refrain  from  offering  to  exchange  pul- 
pits with  Mr.  Ballou ;  or  Dr.  Lowell  with  Mr.  Dean  ?  or  Mr.  Ware  with 
Mr,  Streeter  ?  Why  do  Unitarian  ministers  wish  to  exchange  pulpits 
with  the  Orthodox,  who,  they  say,  "  deny  the  Lord  Jesus  "  and  from 
whom  they  "  differ  widely,"  while  they  refuse  to  exchange  with  the 
Universalists  with  whom  they  agree,  and  who  are  willing  "  to  recip- 
rocate an  exchange  of  gifts  "  with  them  ?  There  is  something  rotten 
in  a  system  afraid  of  itself  and  ashamed  of  its  shadow.  I  forbear  to 
press  this  subject  farther,  not  that  the  materials  at  hand  are  all  ex- 
hausted, or  that  numerous  and  pertinent  inquiries  might  not  be  press- 
ed, but  because  enough  has  been  produced  to  satisfy  ingenuous  minds, 
hitherto  held  in  the  dark  by  intentional  ambiguity  of  language,  of  the 
Universalism  of  Unitarians,  The  difference  between  Universalists 
and  Unitarians   is  this,   the  former  openly  state  their  opinions ;  the 


145 

latter  disingenuously  conceal  them.      "Wliich  is  most  worthy  of  con- 
fidence,— honesty  or  craft  7 

Since  writing  the  foregoing  remarks,  an  authority  has  come  to 
hand  so  full  and  so  explicit,  that,  one  would  think,  it  must  settle  the 
question  "  whether  Unitarians  are  Universalists,"  forever.  It  should 
be  premised  that  "  the  Olive  Branch  and  Christian  Inquirer,"  from 
which  a  quotation  has  already  been  made  in  this  note,  is  a  paper 
formed  by  the  union  of  the  two  whose  names  it  takes.  The  former 
of  these  has  been  for  some  time  avowedly  a  Universalist  weekly 
paper,  edited  by  the  Rev.  Mr.  Kneeland ;  the  latter  was  a  Unitarian 
paper,  edited  by  the  Rev.  Mr.  Bates.  Of  these,  the  Unitarian  paper 
failed  for  want  of  patronage,  and  the  Universalist  paper  was  in  nearly 
the  same  predicament,  when  a  joint  effort  was  made  to  sustain  one 
weekly  "  liberal"  newspaper.  The  first  number  of  the  new  journal 
appeared  17th  May,  1828.  From  this  the  following  extract  is  taken, 
signed  and  evidently  written  by  "  A  New  York  Unitarian."  He  is 
giving  his  reasons  for  being  pleased  with  the  re-appearance  of  the 
paper  under  new  and  favoring  auspices. 

"1.  It  will  have  a  tendency  to  make  Unitarians  and  Universalists 
better  acquainted  with  each  other  than  they  now  are.  There  is  no 
good  reason,  which  I  discover,  why  these  two  sects  of  liberal  Chris- 
tians should  remain  at  so  wide  a  distance  from  each  other ;  and  I  ara 
persuaded  it  is  only  necessary  that  they  should  be  better  acquainted 
with  each  other's  sentiments  to  create  mutual  esteem  and  good 
will.  Some  Universalists,  I  am  sorry  to  say  it,  have  indulged  in  un- 
warrantable severity  of  remark  upon  the  New  England  Unitarians, 
and  on  the  other  hand,  some  Unitarians,  not  understanding  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Universalists,  have  made  unfair  statements  of  the  tendency 
of  their  sentiments.  These  things  have  operated  to  keep  the  two 
sects  wider  apart  than  any  minor  differences  of  opinion  seem  to 
justify. 

"  2.  Another  reason  why  I  am  pleased  with  this  new  arrangement 
is  because  both  sects  are  firm  believers  in  the  doctrine  of  the  divine 
Unity  ;  and  equally  advocate  the  same  spiritual  and  rational  views  of 
the  character  and  mission  of  Jesus  Christ. 

"  3.  Another  reason  and  the  only  one  I  shall  now  notice,  is  that 
hath  denominations  believe  in  the  final  restoration  of  all  men  to 
virtue  and  happiness.  It  is  true  a  few  Unitarians  may  beheve  in 
the  Orthodox  doctrine  of  eternal  misery,  and  a  small  number  also 
may  be  the  advocates  of  the  annihilation  of  the  finally  impenitent ; 
yet  the  great  mass  of  Unitarians  both  in  this  country  and  in  Europe 


146 

boldly  avow  their  disbelief  of  eternal  misery  and  their  firm  persuasion 
of  the  restoration  of  mankind  to  holiness  and  happiness.  So  obvious 
is  this  fact  that  there  is  no  publication  of  any  Unitarian  of  respecta- 
bility, but  what  discloses  these  views,  and  it  is  one  of  the  charges  of 
unsoundness  of  faith  which  is  brought  against  them  by  their  Orthodox 
opponents.  It  is,  however,  an  acknowledged  fact  that  Unitarians 
have  not  felt  themselves  called  upon  to  say  much  on  this  subject,  but 
when  called  upon  they  have  not  shunned  to  declare  this  part  of  the 
counsel  of  God.  In  England  it  is  otherwise,  for  as  there  are  but 
few,  if  any  Universalist  societies,  in  contradistinction  to  Unitarians, 
the  ministers  of  the  latter  both  in  their  preaching  and  writings  boldly 
and  fearlessly  declare  their  belief  in  the  doctrine  of  universal  restoration. 
TTiat  there  is  a  difference  of  opinion  between  Unitarians  and  some  Uni- 
versalists  as  to  the  time  when  it  will  take  place,  I  freely  confess  ; 
hut  that  they  agree  in  the  ultimate  destination  of  man  to  virtue 
and  hajjpines,  all  must  allow.  As  this  then  is  an  admitted  fact,  I 
cannot  possibly  conceive  that  this  difference  of  opinion  should  any 
longer  operate  to  keep  them  from  acting  in  concert  in  the  common 
cause  of  liberal  Christianity." 

Comment  is  unnecessary.  Is  it  io  express  a  fearfully  impor- 
tant truth,  or  is  it  merely  "  to  serve  a  turn,"  that  the  Orthodox  call 
the  Unitarians,  Universalists  ?  Hereafter,  be  it  remembered,  this  is 
"  an  admitted  fact,"  admitted  by  the  New  York  Unitarians,  admitted 
by  the  Rev.  Mr.  Ware  in  the  first  number  of  the  "  Unitarian."  Will 
the  Unitarian  Advocate,  or  Christian  Examiner,  or  Christian  Register 
favor  the  Rev.  Mr.  Kneeland  with  the  precise  reason  why  he  and 
his  Universalist  brethren  are  refused  "  an  interchange  of  gifts  "  with 
their  Unitarian  fellow  labourers  ?  Why,  (we  repeat  this  question 
and  wish  it  deeply  pondered,)  why  do  the  Unitarian  Clergy  of 
Massachusetts  seek  to  exchange  pulpits  with  the  Orthodox,  who,  in 
their  view  "  are  guilty  ef  denying  the  Lord  Jesus,^'  while  they  close 
their  own  pulpits  against  the  Universalists,  loith  whom  they  are 
essentially  agreed;  and  ivho  desire  to  ''reciprocate  an  exchange 
of  gifts''  with  them? 


NOTE  J. 

ARE    TJjN'ITARIANS    CHRISTIANS  ? 

Unitarians  complain  that  the  Orthodox  deny  them  the  name 
•  Christian.'  If  the  term  properly  belong  to  them,  the  Orthodox  have 
no  right  to  withhold  it,  and  the  Unitarian  complaint  is  not  without 


147 

reason.  In  what  sense,  then,  i^  the  term  withheld  ?  Not  in  its  geo- 
graphical sense.  Those  that  live  within  certain  lines  and  colours  on 
the  map,  are  Christian,  or  Mahometan,  or  Pagan.  Unitarians  and  the 
Orthodox  and  Deists  are  all,  in  this  sense,  Christian.  If  the  term 
Christian,  mean  merely  reputable,  honest,  kindhearted,  intelligent 
men,  in  this  sense  it  is  cheerfully  conceded  to  a  great  majority  of 
Unitarian  professors.  But  if  the  term  be  understood  as  indicative  of 
a  saving  foith  and  holy  character ;  indicative  of  those,  who  will  at 
tlie  last  day  be  acknowledged  as  the  real  followers  of  Christ,  it  is  as 
generally  withheld  in  this  sense,  as  it  is  conceded  in  that  immediately 
preceding.  That  there  may  be  real  Christians  in  Unitaiian  churches 
and,  of  course,  that  such  deserve  the  name  Christian,  in  the  sense 
last  explained,  the  Orthodox  do  not  deny.  They  do  not  pretend, 
they  do  not  feel  themselves  called  upon,  or  competent  to  decide,  how 
much  error  may  be  innocently  connected  with  a  saving  knowledge 
of  the  truth ;  nor  how  small  a  portion  of  divine  truth  may  be  made 
instrumental  to  the  saving  of  the  soul.  But  that  those,  who,  under- 
standing at  the  time  what  they  say,  deny  the  original  entire  corrup- 
tion of  the  human  heart,  the  divinity  and  atonement  of  Christ,  re- 
generation by  the  Holy  Spirit,  gratuitous  pardon  through  the 
merits  of  the  Redeemer,  and  the  everlasting  punishment  of  the  im- 
penitent, are  Christians,  they  cannot  concede  without  renouncing 
all  their  main  principles,  without  giving  up  the  whole  subject  in  debate. 
To  insist  upon  the  Orthodox  yielding  to  Unitarians  the  name  Chris- 
tian, in  this  sense,  is  to  insist  upon  the  Orthodox  renouncing  their 
I)rinciples  and  becoming  Unitarians.  A  very  modest  request,  surely  ; 
or,  at  least,  a  very  liberal  one  !  It  seems  to  be  a  favorite  argument,  with 
some  "  rational  "  preachers,  addressed  to  the  prejudices  of  their  hear- 
ers and  personal  friends,  who  know  them  to  be  estimable  men  in  their 
civil  and  social  relations,  the  Orthodox  deny  that  we  are  Christians, 
therefore  ice  certainly  are  ;  and  they  are  bigoted  Calvinists,  disjjo- 
sed  to  imitate  their  master,  who  burnt  Servetus.  If  it  were  neces- 
sary, passages  might  be  adduced,  the  logic  of  which  fully  equals  this. 
But,  not  to  dwell  on  this,  do  the  Unitarians  of  Boston  icorship 
Christ  ?  No.  They  refuse  to  worship  him.  Was  Socinus  a  bigot  ? 
No.  He  is  held  in  high  estimation  by  the  Unitarians  of  Boston,  as 
an  enlightened,  libtral,  rational  Christian.  Toulmin  informs  us,  in 
his  Life  of  Socinus,  page  467,  that  "  Socinus  denied  that  those  who 
refuse  to  worship  Christ  are  to  be  called  Christians."  Let  Socinus 
speak  for  himself.  Speaking  of  Paleologus,  he  says,  "  he  was  one, 
and,  if  I  mistake  not,  the  chief  standard-bearer  among  those,  w^ho  at 
this  day  affirm  that  Christ  is  not  to  be  adorei^  and  invoked  in  prayer, 


148 

and  yet  in  the  mean  while  have  the  effrontery  to  call  theinselves 
Christians."  Lindsey's  Historical  View  of  Unitarian  Doctrine,  p. 
263.  In  the  judgment  of  Socinus,  the  hierophant  of  Unitarian  mys- 
teries, the  Humanitarians  of  Boston,  refusing  to  worship  Christ,  do 
not  deserve  to  be  called  Christians.  Is  it  a  clear  proof  of  fire-and- 
faggot,  Calvinistic  bigotry,  to  coincide  with  the  first  great  leader  of 
their  sect  ?  Dr.  Priestley,  at  once  the  Briareus  and  Corypheus  of  his 
party,  frankly  said,  "  the  truth  is,  there  neither  can,  nor  ought  to  be 
any  compromise  between  us.  If  you  are  right,  we  are  not  Chris- 
tians at  all ;  and  if  we  are  right,  you  are  gross  idolaters."  He 
considers  it  "  ridiculous  that  Unitarians  should  be  allowed  to  think 
Trinitarians  idolaters,  without  being  permitted  to  call  them  so ;"  and 
adds,  "  1  have  no  idea  of  being  offended  with  any  man  in  things  of  this 
kind,  for  speaking  what  he  believes  to  be  the  truth."  Dr.  Priestley 
here  speaks  like  a  man  in  earnest,  believing  what  he  said  to  be  truth. 
Why  should  the  admirers  of  the  Doctor  wish  for  a  compromise,  when 
the  fact  is  just  as  stated  by  him,  either  Trinitarians  are  idolaters,  or 
Unitarians  are  not  Christians  ?  Why  should  not  the  Orthodox  say 
what  they  believe  ?  Or  why  should  they  be  compelled  to  say  what 
they  do  not  believe  ?  The  gentleman,  who  writes  with  such  fiippant 
ambiguity  about  the  "  exclusive  sect"  and  system,  mi^ht  take  a  pro- 
fitable lesson  from  the  frank  and  unjustly  persecuted  philosopher  of 
Birmingham. 

Let  us  vary  this  subject.  "SMio  are  Christians  ?  Are  not  those 
who  worship  one  God  and  only  one,  and  acknowledge  Jesus  to  he 
a  divinely  appointed  prophet,  and  believe  in  a  future  life.  Chris- 
tians 7  I  shall  not  take  the  trouble  to  verify  this  definition  by  refer- 
ence to  Unitarian  writings.  But  if  any  one,  entitled  to  notice,  calls 
for  verification,  it  can  be  given  in  abundance.  Unitarians  are  Chris- 
tians in  the  sense  just  defined,  believing  and  doing  all  which  that 
definition  requires.  But  let  me  ask  the  Boston  Unitarian,  is  the 
Mahometan  a  Christian  ?  Ai-e  the  Turkish  armies,  engaged  in 
butchering  the  Christian  Greeks,  Christians  ?  Certainly  not.  But 
the  Turks  worship  one  God,  and  only  one  ;  acknowledge  Jesus 
to  be  a  divinely  appointed  prophet,  and  believe  in  a  future  life. 
The  Turks,  then,  or  Mahometans,  are,  according  to  the  Unitarian 
definition  of  the  term  Christian,  Christians,  believing  precisely 
what  the  Unitarians  believe.  But  Mahometans,  in  the  judgment 
of  Boston  Unitarians,  are  not  Christians,  wherefore  Unitarians,  accord- 
ing to  their  own  reasoning,  are  not  Christians.  The  logical  force  of 
this  argument  will  be  more  clearly  seen  thus.  If  Unitarians,  as  suchy 
ai-e  Christians,  Mahometans,  being  Unitarians,  are  Christians ;  but 


149 

Mahometans  are  not  Christians,  wherefore  Unitarians,  as  such, 
are  not  Christians.  Taking  the  Enghsh  definition  of  Unitarian- 
ism,  and  alloicing  that  a  believer  in  Unitarianism  is  a  Christian, 
this  argument  is  irresistible  to  prove  that  he  is  not.  If  that,  which 
constitutes  men  Unitarians,  makes  them  also  at  the  same  time 
Christians,  Mahometans  believing  precisely  what  constitutes  men 
Unitarians,  are  of  course  Christians.  There  is  no  possible  way  for 
a  Unitarian  to  avoid  this  conclusion.  He  must  then  admit  Mahome- 
tans to  the  fellowship  of  Unitarians,  as  "  good  Christians,"  or  he 
must  adopt  some  other  definition  of  a  Christian  than  that  already 
given.  But  Monotheism  is  not  Christianity  nor  Mahomctanism. 
Unitarians,  to  deserve  the  name  Christian,  must  adopt  some  other 
article  into  their  creed  than  that  quoted  in  the  preceding  note  from 
the  iNIonthly  Repository,  or  those  from  the  Christian  Disciple. 

Boston  Unitarians,  it  appears  then,  in  the  opinion  of  the  Orthodox, 
of  Socinus,  and  (shall  it  be  said?)  of  themselves  also,  are  not  Chris- 
tians. Must  the  Ortliodox  yield  a  name,  v/hich  Dr.  Priestley  allows 
Unitarians  do  not  deserve,  if  Orthodox  views  be  correct  ? 

Here  then  we  might  rest  our  defence,  exonerated,  as  we  trust, 
from  the  charge  of  illiberality,  higotry,  a  disposition  to  persecute,  &c. 
&c.;  but  we  have  other  facts  and  reasons  for  our  conduct,  to  which 
we  ask  the  particular  attention  of  candid,  inquiring  Unitarians.  We 
believe  the  fact,  that  the  Orthodox  deny  that  Unitarians  are  Chris- 
tians, from  the  manner  in  which  this  denial  is  represented  by  Uni- 
tarians themselves,  forms  in  many  minds  a  strong  objection  to  Or- 
thodoxy. This  forms  one  of  the  most  popular  ad  invidiam  argu- 
ments of  Unitarian  writers.  I  shall  not  stop  to  inquire  whether  the 
same  argument,  in  the  same  manner,  was  not  advanced  by  the  op- 
ponents of  the  early  Christians ;  nor  shall  I  adduce  any  quotations 
from  Gibbon  to  show  the  "  exclusive,"  "  intolerant "  character  of 
the  gospel  of  Christ,  compared  with  the  elegant  forms  and  liberal 
spirit  of  paganism.  I  choose  to  take  another,  and  a  somewhat 
unusual  course. 

I  premise,  that  the  Unitarians  of  Boston  entertain,  and  have 
often  expressed,  a  high  opinion  of  the  learning,  the  piety,  the 
enlarged  and  genuine  liberality  of  the  Polish  Socinians.  They 
would  have  us  understand  that  they  have  not  done  this  ignorantly. 
Will  they  abide  the  decision  of  their  Polish  brethren  on  the  question 
"  whether  they  are  Christians  ?"  Let  them  recollect  the  character 
they  have  repeatedly,  in  their  publications,  given  these  Polish  Uni- 
tarians, and  they  will,  doubtless,  be  happy  for  an  appeal  from  bigoted 
Calvinists  to  the  learned,  pious,  and  liberal-minded  Polish  Socinians. 

13 


150 

The  opinion  of  Socinus  we  have  already  seen,  but  in  this  he  may  have 
been  singular.  We  will  not  again  appeal  to  hirn.  What  we  wish  is 
the  opinion  of  the  whole  body  of  Polish  Socinians.  Is  it  to  be  had  ? 
Happily  it  is.  The  first  Polish  Socinian  catechism  was  published  in 
1605,  and  in  1609  was  printed  at  London.  In  it  are  this  question  and 
answer.  "  Question.  What  think  you  of  those  men  who  do  not  pray 
to  Christ,  nor  allow  that  he  is  to  be  worshipped  ?  Answer.  I  think 
they  are  by  no  means  Christians;  because  in  fact  they  do  not  own 
Jesus  to  be  the  Christ,  and  though  in  words  they  dare  not  deny  it, 
yet  they  do  it  in  their  deeds."  More  to  the  same  purpose  may  be 
found  in  Lindsey's  Historical  View  of  Unitarian  Doctrine,  p.  252. 
This  catechism  was  published  after  the  death  of  Socinus,  and  is 
known  to  embody  the  deliberate  opinions  of  that  numerous,  original 
class  of  Socinians,  whose  extensive  learning,  unshrinking  piety,  and 
unquestioned  liberality,  have  been  the  theme  of  repeated  commenda- 
tion from  American  Unitarians.  We  ask  for  a  passage  in  any  Ortho- 
dox catechism,  wherein  those,  who  refuse  to  worship  Christ,  are  as 
explicitly  denied  to  be  Christians,  as  in  this  first  Unitarian  catechism 
published  after  the  Reformation.  We  hope  after  this,  either  to  hear  no 
more  commendations  of  the  liberal  Christians  of  Poland,  or  no  more 
censure  of  the  Orthodox  for  that  in  which  they  agree  with  them. 
Let  not  my  object  here  be  mistaken.  I  am  not  attempting  to  prove 
any  thing  because  the  Polish  Socinians  believed  it.  I  am  attempt- 
ing to  silence  a  Unitarian  objection  by  an  appeal  to  their  own  much 
applauded,  much  quoted,  much  credited  witnesses. 

Let  us  vary  this  subject  once  more,  and  view  it  in  yet  another 
lio-ht.  Intelligent  Unitarians  in  England  and  this  country  perceive 
and  allow,  that  the  scriptures  confine  prayer  or  invocation  and  adora- 
tion to  that  divine  Being,  who  will  not  give  his  glory  to  another.  To 
invoke  or  to  worship  Christ  is  said  by  them  to  be  unscriptural,  irra- 
tional, improper  and  idolatrous.  No  Unitarian  minister  in  Boston  is- 
ever  guiby  of  the  impropriety,  the  idolatry,  of  invoking  or  calling 
upon  Christ  in  prayer.  The  case  of  Stephen  is  thought  to  have  been 
extraordinary  and  unique,  he  having  had  especial  manifestation  of 
Christ,  which  made  it  peculiarly  proper  for  him  thus  "  to  call  upon 
the  Lord  Jesus  to  receive  his  spirit."  The  Unitarians  of  Boston 
agree  with  Lindsey,  Carpenter,  Davidies  and  Paleologus  in  withhold- 
ing adoration  and  supplication  from  Christ.  Yet  in  the  scriptures,  the 
primitive  Christians  are  described  as  "  those,  who  called  upon  the 
name  of  Christ."  How  can  this  difficulty  be  got  over  ?  How  can 
he  contrariety  between  present  Unitarian,  and  apparently  primitive 
Christian  practice  be  reconciled  ?     The  intelligent   Unitarian,  who 


151 

understands  the  original  Greek  in  these  passages  answers,  "  very 
easily,  thus ;  the  phrase,  which,  in  various  places,  is  translated, 
•  those  who  call  upon  the  name  of  Christ,'  is  mis-translated  ;  it  should 
be  rendered  '  those,  who  are  called  by  the  name  of  Christ ;'  i.  e.  this 
expression  simply  designates  them,  as  Christians,  followers  of  Christ, 
and  must  have  been  so  understood  by  those,  who  first  used  this  lan- 
guage. Those,  who  were  called  by  the  name  of  Christ  were  Chris- 
tians, just  as  those,  called  by  the  name  of  Plato  were  Platonists ;  or 
of  Calvin,  Calvinists  ;  or  of  Socinus,  Socinians.  This  expression 
then,  on  which  the  Orthodox  have  so  confidently  relied  to  prove  the 
divinity  of  Christ,  from  the  fact  that  the  primitive  Christians  address- 
ed prayers  to  him,  means  nothing  more  than  that  the  disciples  tvere 
called  Christians,  no  very  strong  argument,  surely,  unless  it  will  also 
prove  that  the  Unitarian  Christians  of  Boston  worship  Christ."  I  ask 
intelligent  Unitarians  if  this  is  not  a  fair  statement  of  their  opinions  on 
these  disputed  texts.  It  will  not  be  denied  that  these  passages  mean 
either,  to  be  called  by  th^  name,  or,  to  call  upon  the  name,  of  Christ. 
These  are  the  only  interpretations,  which  professed  scholars  will 
venture  to  produce.  Should  these  words,  then,  be  shown  to  mean 
simply  Christians,  without  pointing  them  out  as  those  that  invoked 
Christ,  though  the  Unitarian  critics  would  effectually  remove  one 
class  of  texts  on  which  the  Orthodox  have  placed  some  reliance  to 
prove  the  divinity  of  Christ,  they  would  deserve  credit  for  presenting 
us  with  simply  scriptural  truth.  This,  certainly,  is  of  higher  impor- 
tance than  any  mere  support  of  party  or  sect.  We  should  willingly 
follow  where  truth  leads,  come  what  of  contempt,  of  odium,  of  per- 
secution there  may. 

But  how  shall  we  know,  in  the  present  case,  that  the  Uni- 
tarian interpretation  is  the  true  one  in  preference  to  the  Ortho- 
dox and  commonly  received  interpretation  .'  Each  party  claims 
Greek  usage  and  Greek  authorities.  I  am  not  disposed  to  enter  into 
this  discussion,  whatever  may  be  the  truth.  The  reader  of  the 
English  Testament  merely,  may  stand  in  doubt,  when  Mr.  A.  affirms 
and  Mr.  B.  denies.  Let  us  grant,  for  sake  of  argument,  that  the  case 
is  doubtful,  that  the  evidence  for  each  interpretation  is  equal.  The 
scales  now  hang  in  equilibrio.  Is  there  any  weight  which  may  turn 
them  ?  What  would  Gesenius,  and  the  whole  class  of  consistent 
thorough-going  rationalist  scholars,  say  upon  these  passages  ?  Will 
Unitarians  abide  their  decision  ?  But  this  would  not  help  the  Eng- 
lish reader,  who  wishes  for  argument  and  not  authority.  Is  there 
any  way  in  which  a  plain  common  sense  English  reader  can  deter- 
mine this  much  controverted  question  to  his  own  satisfaction  ?    Let  us 


152 

see.  Suppose  we  can  fix  by  one  and  the  same  historian,  upon  the 
time  and  place  when  and  where  the  disciples  were^rs^  called  Chris- 
tians ;  and  suppose,  according-  to  this  historian,  that  this  expression 
was  in  common  use  before  the  disciples  were  so  called,  will  not  the 
question  be  settled  that  whatever  this  controverted  expression  may 
mean,  it  does  not  simply  designate  the  name  Christian  ?  For  this 
purpose  compare  Acts  xi.  26  and  ix.  14.  "  The  disciples  were  called 
Christians  first  in  Antioch."  This  was,  according  to  the  chronologists, 
between  A.  D.  42  and  44.  Ananias  answered,  "  Lord,  I  have  heard  by 
many  of  this  man,  how  much  evil  he  hath  done  to  thy  saints  at  Jeru- 
salem ;  and  here  he  hath  authority  fiom  the  chief  pi'iests  to  bind  all 
that  call  on  thy  name."  This  was  A.  D.  34  or  35,  i.  e.  from  7  to  10 
years  before  the  disciples  were  called  by  the  name  of  their  master. 
It  should  be  borne  in  mind,  that  it  is  the  same  historian  who  relates 
both  facts.  Comment  on  these  passages  in  this  connexion  is  almost 
superfluous.  Yet  I  will  ask,  whom  did  Ananias  address  by  the  word, 
Lord  7  Not  the  Father,  certainly,  for  Christians  were  not  called  by 
the  name  of  the  Father.  "  By  thy  name,"  as  Unitarians  would  ren- 
der this  passage,  they  themselves  say,  is  to  be  understood  the  name  of 
Christ.  Here  then  is  an  explicit  instance  of  an  early  disciple  calling 
upon  the  name  of  Christ,  or  invoking  or  praying  to  Christ.  Was  Ana- 
nias guilty  of  uttering  in  prayer  a  solemn  falsehood  to  Christ,  saying 
that  the  disciples  were  called  by  his  name  seven  years  before  they  were 
so  called  ?  Or  did  Luke  forget  in  the  eleventh  chapter,  what  he 
related  in  the  ninth  ?  Or  is  this  an  instance  in  which  he  only  related, 
according  to  the  best  of  his  knowledge,  but  certainly  erred  ?  To  sum 
up  all  in  one  question,  I  ask  the  English  reader  of  the  New  Testament 
and  the  most  learned  biblical  critic,  whether  the  disciples  of  Christ  at 
Jerusalem  and  elsewhere,  previous  to  'the  time  when  Barnabas  and 
Saul  assembled  themselves  with  the  church  a  whole  year  and  taught 
much  people  at  Antioch,  where  "  the  disciples  were  first  called  Chris- 
tians," were  not  described  as  those  that  called  upon  the  name  of 
the  Lord  7  In  the  Improved  Version  these  passages  are  rendered 
thus.  "  The  disciples  were  first  called  Christians  at  Antioch."  "  He 
hath  authority  to  bind  all,  who  are  called  by  thy  name."  Whatever 
system  of  chronology  we  adopt,  it  is  admitted  on  all  hands,  that  this 
latter  assertion,  made  by  Ananias  in  prayer  to  the  Lord,  must  have 
preceded  the  other  fact  recorded  by  the  same  historian,  that  the  dis- 
ciples were  first  called  Christians  at  Antioch,  by  some  years.  I  ask 
if  this  testimony  is  not  sufficiently  explicit,  of  sufficient  weight,  to 
turn  the  scales,  and  decide  the  question  forever  ?  Is  not  the  prac- 
tice of  Ananias  an  intelligible  comment  on  his  words  ?      If  Ananias 


153 

might  properly  address  Christ  in  prayer,  why  might  he  not  describe 
others  as  accustomed  to  do  the  same  ?  Had  not  Stephen  just  com- 
mended his  departing  spirit  into  the  hands  of  the  Lord  Jesus  ?  Will 
Unitarians  still  think  it  unscriptural,  irrational,  and  idolatrous  to  imi- 
tate Stephen,  Ananias,  and  the  saints  of  the  Lord  ? 

Other  considerations  strengthen  this  view  of  the  subject.  At 
the  time  of  Paul's  journey  to  Damascus,  "  the  disciples."  were 
not  yet  called  Christians  at  Jerusalem.  Ananias  had  never  known 
such  a  name  applied  to  "  the  saints"  of  the  "  Lord  ;"  or  at  least,  with- 
out assuming  the  point  in  debate,  there  is  no  evidence  that  he  ever 
had,  and,  if  the  hUtorian  is  to  be  credited  as  to  its  suhsequent  origin 
and  appUcation,  he  never  had.  It  is  apparent  from  the  narrative  of 
Luke,  that  it  was  a  new  name,  first  given  to  the  disciples  at  Antioch, 
before  and  elsewhere  wholly  unknown.  At  Jerusalem  the  name 
Christ  was  synonymous  with  Messiah,  anointed  of  the  Lord.  The 
disciples  would  not  take  the  name  from  reverence  to  their  Lord.* 
The  Jews  would  not  give  it  because  it  would  imply  that  the  Mes- 
siah had  come,  and  that  these  followers  of  the  despised  Nazarene 
were  believers  in  the  true  Christ.  At  Antioch  the  case  was  different. 
The  heathen  converts  had  not  the  same  reverence  for  the  mere 
name,  and  those,  who  continued  heathen  might  very  naturally  apply 
the  term  as  an  opprobrious  epithet,  which  would  readily  be  adopted 
by  those,  who  wore  spoken  evil  of  "  for  the  name  "  of  their  master. 
These  considerations,  suggested  on  reflection,  lend  additional  weight 
to  the  opinion,  which  is  forced  upon  us  by  the  comparison  of  the  two 
passages  already  quoted  from  the  Acts. 

"  Those  that  called  upon  the  name  of  Christ"  means,  then,  those 
that  invoked  or  prayed  to  Christ,  and  not  merely  those  that  were 
called  by  his  name.  Let  liberal  minds  follow  out  their  principles, 
and  as  they  allow  that  invocation  or  prayer  is  a  proper,  and  the  most 
proper  act  of  religious  worship  ;  and  as  the  scriptures  limit  such  re- 
ligious worship  to  the  one  Supreme  Jehovah ;  let  them  not  shrink 
from  the  conclusion  that  the  Lord  from  heaven  is,  in  some  view  of  his 
character,    truly   and   properly   divine ;  God    over  all,  blessed 

FOREVER. 

One  word  as  to  a  name  appropriate  to  the  present  Unitarians,  and 
distinctive  of  their  creed.  What  objection  can  there  be  to  the  term 
Humanitarian?  In  England,  it  is  proposed  by  a  writer  in  the 
Monthly  Repository  to  substitute  Philadelphian  for  Unitarian.  By 
the  extract  before  made  from  Socinus,  it  appears  that  Paleologus  was 

*  Besides,  why  should  they  not  be  called  after,  or  take  their  name  from,  Jesus  ? 
"  Thou  shall  call  his  name  Jesus." 


154 

the  first  and  the  chief  standard  bearer  among  those,  who,  after  the 
Reformation,  denied  that  Christ  was  to  be  worshipped,  and  yet  "had 
the  effrontery  to  claim  to  be  Christians."  In  the  view  of  Boston 
Unitarians,  he  must  have  been  a  most  enhghtened  Christian,  liberal 
and  rational  beyond  his  age,  throwing  all  other  of  his  contemporary 
reformers  into  the  shade.  Would  not  the  name  Paleologians  be  at 
once  appropriate,  definite,  and  distinctive  for  American  Unitarians  ? 
But  we  have  no  dispute  about  names.  We  are  quite  willing  to  be 
called  Calvinists,  (claiming  the  liberty  of  defining  what  we  mean 
by  the  term,)  than  which.  Unitarians  being  judges,  no  name  can  be 
less  desirable  or  less  honorable.  Will  Boston  Humanitarians  be  afraid 
of  the  name  of  their  "  standard-bearer"?  Will  Unitarians  longer 
"  have  the  effrontery  "  not  only  "  to  call  themselves  Christians,"  but 
to  insist  upon  the  Orthodox  calling  and  considering  them  such  ? 
At  all  events,  the  Orthodox  cannot  be  thought  bigoted  for  agreeing 
with  the  Polish  Socinians,  that  those  who  refuse  to  call  upon  the 
name  of  Christ,  do  not  deserve  to  be  called  by  his  name. 


NOTE  K. 


It  has  been  seen  from  the  preceding  Letters  and  Notes,  that 
American  Unitarians  have  at  length  reached  the  point  where  the 
canon  is  openly,  and  the  inspiration  and  authority  of  the  sacred 
volume  are  really,  to  be  called  in  question.  I  do  not  believe  that 
all,  who  bear  the  Unitarian  name,  or  are  claimed  as  of  that  sect,  are 
willing  to  expunge  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  from  the  sacred 
volume,  or  to  adopt  the  sweeping  process  of  reasoning  by  which  the 
writer  in  the  Christian  Examiner  would  undermine  its  authority. 
Still  the  leaders  of  the  party  are  committed  to  reject  that  Epistle, 
and  we  have  already  seen  that  the  principle  of  reasoning  by  which 
it  is  rejected,  goes  to  an  entire  subversion  of  the  whole  sacred 
volume.  What  ground  the  Unitarian  critics  will  now  take,  and  how 
far  the  party  will  follow  the  leaders,  remains  to  be  seen.  To  all  who 
reflect  and  understand  the  subject,  it  is  apparent  that  the  same  ques- 
tions are  soon  to  be  debated  here,  that  have  long  been  discussed 
between  the  Supernaturalists  and  Rationahsts  of  Europe.  Professor 
Stuart,  ten  years  ago,  predicted  this  result.     By  his  Commentary  on 


155 

the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  he  has  compelled  the  Unitarians  to  show 
their  colours.  They  must  either  acknowledge  Orthodoxy-  to  be 
the  doctrine  of  inspiration,  or  reject  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews, 
(which  all  well-read  critics  must  allow  to  be  Orthodox,)  as  part  of  the 
inspired  volume.  They  have  chosen  the  latter  alternative.  What 
ground  will  be  taken  by  the  Christian  Examiner  when  the  Epistle  to 
the  Romans  shall  be  given  to  the  public  by  the  Professor,  though 
matter  of  conjecture,  is  hardly  a  matter  of  rational  doubt. 

As  this  work  may  f\ll  into  the  hands  of  some  young  or  inquisitive 
minds,  who  have  not  yet  examined  the  great  subjects  of  revelation  and 
inspiration,  it  may  aid  them  in  their  investigations  on  these  all-im- 
portant topics  to  have  a  few  of  the  best  authors  pointed  out.     The 
following  list  may  all  be  studied  to  great  advantage  and,  perhaps,  in 
the  order  in  which  they  here  stand  as  well  as  in  any  other.     Dr. 
Channing's  Dudleian  Lecture.     This   is   a  beautiful  specimen   of 
composition,  having  the  writer's  usual  elegance,  and  an  unusual  share 
of  logic.     Leslie^ s  Short  and  Easy  Method  with  Deists  ;  an  incon- 
trovertible argument  as  Middleton,  with  his  infidel  prejudices,  can- 
didly acknowledged.     Erskine^s  Internal  Evidence  ;  a  scholar-like, 
philoso|,hical   and   truly   rational  work,   in   which   vital   religion   is 
divested  of  technicality,  and  presented  in  its  own  lineaments,  colours 
and  proportions.  The  last  edition  is  the  best.  Paley's  Horce  PaulincB  ; 
the  most  original  and  masterly  production  of  its  author  ;  containing, 
not  oulv  an  able  defence  of  Christianity,   but   the  most  satisfactory 
proof  of  the  genuineness  of  the  documents  of  Christianity  to  be  found 
in  the  English  language.    Bishop  Marsh's  Lectures  contain  the  most 
scientific  view   of  the   evidences  of  Christianity  accessible   to    the 
English  scholar;  though  designed  as  a  directory  for  theological  stu- 
dents, they  will  richly  reward  the  study  of  intelligent  laymen.     If 
but  one  book  could  be  read,  Paley's  Evidences  should  probably  be 
selected.     In  addition  to  the  preceding  list,  Bogue's  Essay  on  the 
A^ew  Testament,  and  Littleton's   Conversion  of  St.  Paul,  might  be 
studied  with  great  profit.      To  remov^e  difficulties  and  silence  objec- 
tions, Butler's  Analogy  is   unequalled.     It  were  easy  to  swell  this 
list,  but  these  works  are   among  the   best,  and   deserve  to   be   first 
studied  ;   and  he,  who  has  mastered  these,  will  be  master  of  the  sub- 
ject,    in  regard  to  the  canon,  inspiration  and  authority  of  tlie  scrip- 
tures, Storr  unquestionably  holds  the  first  place.     Jahn's  Introduc- 
tion to  the  Old  Testament  has  recently  been  given  to  the  public,  for 
which    il.e    translators    deserve    many   thanks;  this,  together  with 
J/ui^'s  Introduction  to  the  Writings  of  the  J\''ew  Covenant,  which 
has  recently  been  translated  and  published  in  England,  supply  a  de. 


156 

sideratura  long  felt  in  our  Biblical  apparatus.  Home's  Introduction 
is  worth  having.  As  an  Introduction  to  a  particular  book,  Profes- 
sor Stuart's  Introduction  to  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  is  a  work, 
that  will  be  more  highly  appreciated  the  more  it  is  known,  and  will  be 
most  highly  valued  by  those  best  able  to  estimate  its  worth.  The 
Rationalists  may  despair  of  success,  when  they  see  every  attack 
anticipated,  every  argument  sifted,  every  fallacy  exposed,  every  ab- 
surdity portrayed,  before  hand. 


14  DAY  USE 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 

LOAN  DEPT. 

This  book  is  due  on  the  last  date  stamped  below,  or 

on  the  date  to  which  renewed. 

Renewed  books  are  subject  to  immediate  recall. 


6Jan'65Vl 


kEjC'D  L.D 


LD  21A-60m-4,'64 
(E4555sl0)476B 


General  Library 

University  of  California 

Berkeley 


This-         ;^ 

UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


